In his second stint (and third year) as council president, we hear that Mr. Gahan intends to lock in the council agendas five business days prior to the meetings. That might make it easier for members and watchdogs to prepare. It might just make it easier for members.
It does create a situation where evolving issues will be shut out from discussion. One such issue where the city council could lend its influence has arisen. We are waiting to find out if this new, unannounced parliamentary procedure will be used to stifle debate or invigorate it. The convenience of members shouldn't be the paramount consideration. But then, as seen below, some members just need more time to avoid confusion. But will they use the extra time or simply wait until the gavel falls to begin their consideration.
In any event, you don't have to wait until Monday to study up. The Feb. 4 agenda is posted now, accompanied online by the exhibits included in members' packets.
It may come as a surprise that the council intends to revisit its decision to withdraw its lawsuits against the sewer board and the stormwater board. That was one of two pieces of litigation that were put to rest at the last regular meeting of January, but apparently this council wants its day in court and wants Judge Cody to adjudicate the issue of professional service contracts.
A majority of the last council (and this one, too, apparently) believes that management contracts are required to be bid out. The question isn't whether they ought to be. It's whether the law requires professional service contracts to be let for proposal and bids. It's an arcane point and probably being driven by legal experts on the council, but it's going to cost us to find out.
As of this writing, we hear that the council has made no further efforts to end the other litigation in the case where they are the defendants. Despite a looming federal court deadline on Monday, no settlement document has been filed in the city's electoral district equal protection case. Monday is the day when council was required to submit a response to the judge. Could the council be planning to rescind that vote, too?
Another item on the agenda is an additional appropriation of $10,000 to fund animal control and round-up operations. This item was not approved under the previous budget, so money must be found elsewhere to meet the "new" need.
Some $53,000 is scheduled to be added to the unsafe building fund, also.
As is the law for appropriations ordinances, a public hearing will take place prior to the council meeting. We invite all you other shadows to join us in the third floor assembly room on Hauss Square on Monday evening.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Defending Diane
Over the past two weeks we've heard a number of complaints about Diane McCartin-Benedetti's rocky start as the rookie council member representing the old 5th District. Around here we call her "D5" to differentiate her (and to avoid the temptation to coin a new label).
Today, we'd like to take a few moments to look on the bright side of her month-old term of office and offer a lawyer's defense of her performance so far.
Here are the indictment particulars.
1. Her obvious reliance on and deference to the political objectives and advice of D1 Dan Coffey.
2. Her inability to recognize the conflict of interest involved in voting on her family's business when it comes before the council.
3. Her apparent lack of understanding of the appropriate divide between legislative and administrative functions.
4. Her lack of understanding of the lawmaking role of council.
5. Her lack of preparation for public meetings.
6. Her demonstrated insensitivity to diversity and common courtesy.
The Coffey Factor
Nominee McCartin-Benedetti could be called, without being at all unfair, "the Coffey candidate." How that particular camel got its nose under the 5th District tent could be a treatise unto itself. Suffice it to say that Diane ran and won based on the urging and counsel of Dan Coffey. Once Bev Crump made it clear that she would not be running for re-election, only Coffey put in the time to recruit a replacement to run in the Democratic Party primary. In 2007, that and a couple of thousand dollars were sufficient to secure the seat.
D5 relies on Coffey as the lead dog and has willingly taken his counsel. Most know that Coffey is a blight and an embarrassment, so her allegiance to him and his political methods are on their face objectionable.
THE DEFENSE: To D5, Coffey is a proven winner. He is now the senior member of council, and was the only member of council to run unopposed in November. He has taken the time to ask for her support and to "teach her the ropes." He has been a friend to her family's business interests and appears to know everything that is going on in the city. Like many of her colleagues before her, she appreciates Mr. Coffey's interest in her and her career and can be expected to reciprocate that interest by deferring to his experience. Whether we like it or not, hers is a rational alliance. It may not benefit the city or its residents, but D5 doesn't know that yet. As time passes and she matures in the seat, perhaps she will, like others before her, begin to distance herself from Coffey.
The Conflicts Factor
On the first and only occasion where her brother's business interests (McCartin-Benedetti is the sister of Gary "The Gary" McCartin, the upstart greenfield developer whose arrogant dismissal of smart growth has made him the poster boy for exploitive behavior and shortsightedness) came before the council, she did not hesitate to cast her vote. Some feigned shock at her refusal to recuse herself from the issue.
THE DEFENSE: One can surmise that McCartin's difficulties with gaining regulatory approvals were a motivating factor in D5's decision to run for office. She reportedly declared herself "knowledgable" and certain that no conflict existed because she personally stood to gain nothing from the proposed project. In fact, she voted to disapprove the project, lining up with all eight of her colleagues, despite a unanimous approval by the Plan Commission and a positive recommendation from the commission and the city staff. Had she recused herself on a 4-4 council tie, her recusal would have acted as an "aye" vote and the McCartin project could have proceeded. The fact that it did not doesn't change the debate about conflicts of interest. The mere fact that others see her participation as such doesn't make it so.
The Checks and Balances Factor
Based on her public comments, D5 believes the council's role is to be a collective part-time mayor. In towns like Clarksville, that is pretty much the role. For county commissioners, that is the role. But in a second class city, the division of powers is well-defined. Reviewing job descriptions and resumes is an executive role. In trying to learn on the job, Benedetti is prone to meddling (as her mentor also is) in functions properly left to the mayor and his professional staff.
THE DEFENSE: As a neophyte, such stumbles should be expected. Unless and until someone takes her aside (someone she respects and will listen to) and explains what is proper and what is improper, she will likely test the limits of her council role. She will certainly be encouraged by her closest advisers to cross the divide as often as she likes. Whether that is proper oversight or meddling is in the eyes of the beholders.
The Ditz Factor
D5 was heard to ask the following question during a January meeting: "When we pass an ordinance...does that last a long time?" Her embarrassed colleagues and mortified constituents shuddered at the naivete of the question. That might have been a question she could have asked before she ran for office.
THE DEFENSE: Learning on the job is a long tradition in New Albany. D5 was busy raising a family. She comes from a family that held similar offices. How hard could it be? What does it matter if she doesn't know the ins and outs of legislation. She'll learn.
The Ditz Factor II
Since January 1, the city's sewer enterprise has operated without a sitting board of directors. Mr. Gahan and Mr. Coffey led a charge to change the board's composition and powers. At January's second meeting, a new ordinance was passed, but with objections, no final reading was permitted. Calling it an urgent matter, the mayor called a special meeting to move the ordinance up and appoint a board to deal with pressing business.
The entire council had voted once. Every council member knew that a second and third reading of the ordinance would be a pressing agenda item. It was so important that a special meeting was called by the mayor.
Here's the relevant snip from Dick Kaukus's coverage in the Courier-Journal: The vote on the two readings last night was 7-1, with one abstention. Voting yes were Gahan, Coffey, Bob Caesar, Steve Price, Pat McLaughlin, John Gonder and Jack Messer. Kevin Zurschmiede, the only Republican on the council, voted no. Councilwoman Diane Benedetti said she was "confused" about the measure and abstained.
That's right. D5 abstained, citing "confusion." Is the 5th District being represented well when its council member can't decide? This matter wasn't "sprung" on her. It had been debated at length. Several days had passed between the first vote and the special meeting.
It's not the first time she has shown indications that she is the council member only when she is attending meetings. Dozens of regular folks seem to know more about the issues she votes on than does she. What kind of preparation does she undertake in advance of and between meetings.
THE DEFENSE: A council seat only pays about $1,000 a month. The meetings required of a council member take hours and hours away from the family. A single council member can't be counted on to know everything. And if a council member is unsure about an issue, she should abstain rather than cast a "wrong" vote that could come back to haunt her at re-election time. Better safe than sorry.
The Ali Factor
Shadow5 was not there, but our first confirmation that we might not be happy with D5 came when reports trickled out about D5's appalling discourtesy at last year's Floyd County Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner.
A respected local officeholder prevailed on the director of the Muhammad Ali Center to be the keynote speaker. In addition to delivering an informative and inspirational message about peace, unity, diversity, and human progress, the speaker arranged to offer a gift basket that included two annual passes to the Ali Center and a variety of other coveted items.
This gift basket was the grand door prize for the evening. Guess whose ticket was drawn? None other than that of Diane McCartin-Benedetti, candidate for city council. As the event drew to a close, D5 approached the emcee and said that she had no interest in accepting the passes or the gifts in that she had no interest whatsoever in visiting the center. Furthermore, when asked if perhaps someone at her table might wish to accept the prize, she continued that none of those who sat at her table had any interest, either. And reportedly she then went to a central committee member and both rejected the prize and criticized the whole idea and theme of the evening.
D5 showed an appalling lack of grace and good judgment. It raised much speculation as to her motives and attitude toward Muhammad Ali, the Ali Center, and the guest speaker and his message. We need not go into the implications of her discourtesy and from what well her actions were drawn. If nothing else, it was just plain rude.
THE DEFENSE: Maybe she just doesn't like those people. You know, boxers.
Today, we'd like to take a few moments to look on the bright side of her month-old term of office and offer a lawyer's defense of her performance so far.
Here are the indictment particulars.
1. Her obvious reliance on and deference to the political objectives and advice of D1 Dan Coffey.
2. Her inability to recognize the conflict of interest involved in voting on her family's business when it comes before the council.
3. Her apparent lack of understanding of the appropriate divide between legislative and administrative functions.
4. Her lack of understanding of the lawmaking role of council.
5. Her lack of preparation for public meetings.
6. Her demonstrated insensitivity to diversity and common courtesy.
The Coffey Factor
Nominee McCartin-Benedetti could be called, without being at all unfair, "the Coffey candidate." How that particular camel got its nose under the 5th District tent could be a treatise unto itself. Suffice it to say that Diane ran and won based on the urging and counsel of Dan Coffey. Once Bev Crump made it clear that she would not be running for re-election, only Coffey put in the time to recruit a replacement to run in the Democratic Party primary. In 2007, that and a couple of thousand dollars were sufficient to secure the seat.
D5 relies on Coffey as the lead dog and has willingly taken his counsel. Most know that Coffey is a blight and an embarrassment, so her allegiance to him and his political methods are on their face objectionable.
THE DEFENSE: To D5, Coffey is a proven winner. He is now the senior member of council, and was the only member of council to run unopposed in November. He has taken the time to ask for her support and to "teach her the ropes." He has been a friend to her family's business interests and appears to know everything that is going on in the city. Like many of her colleagues before her, she appreciates Mr. Coffey's interest in her and her career and can be expected to reciprocate that interest by deferring to his experience. Whether we like it or not, hers is a rational alliance. It may not benefit the city or its residents, but D5 doesn't know that yet. As time passes and she matures in the seat, perhaps she will, like others before her, begin to distance herself from Coffey.
The Conflicts Factor
On the first and only occasion where her brother's business interests (McCartin-Benedetti is the sister of Gary "The Gary" McCartin, the upstart greenfield developer whose arrogant dismissal of smart growth has made him the poster boy for exploitive behavior and shortsightedness) came before the council, she did not hesitate to cast her vote. Some feigned shock at her refusal to recuse herself from the issue.
THE DEFENSE: One can surmise that McCartin's difficulties with gaining regulatory approvals were a motivating factor in D5's decision to run for office. She reportedly declared herself "knowledgable" and certain that no conflict existed because she personally stood to gain nothing from the proposed project. In fact, she voted to disapprove the project, lining up with all eight of her colleagues, despite a unanimous approval by the Plan Commission and a positive recommendation from the commission and the city staff. Had she recused herself on a 4-4 council tie, her recusal would have acted as an "aye" vote and the McCartin project could have proceeded. The fact that it did not doesn't change the debate about conflicts of interest. The mere fact that others see her participation as such doesn't make it so.
The Checks and Balances Factor
Based on her public comments, D5 believes the council's role is to be a collective part-time mayor. In towns like Clarksville, that is pretty much the role. For county commissioners, that is the role. But in a second class city, the division of powers is well-defined. Reviewing job descriptions and resumes is an executive role. In trying to learn on the job, Benedetti is prone to meddling (as her mentor also is) in functions properly left to the mayor and his professional staff.
THE DEFENSE: As a neophyte, such stumbles should be expected. Unless and until someone takes her aside (someone she respects and will listen to) and explains what is proper and what is improper, she will likely test the limits of her council role. She will certainly be encouraged by her closest advisers to cross the divide as often as she likes. Whether that is proper oversight or meddling is in the eyes of the beholders.
The Ditz Factor
D5 was heard to ask the following question during a January meeting: "When we pass an ordinance...does that last a long time?" Her embarrassed colleagues and mortified constituents shuddered at the naivete of the question. That might have been a question she could have asked before she ran for office.
THE DEFENSE: Learning on the job is a long tradition in New Albany. D5 was busy raising a family. She comes from a family that held similar offices. How hard could it be? What does it matter if she doesn't know the ins and outs of legislation. She'll learn.
The Ditz Factor II
Since January 1, the city's sewer enterprise has operated without a sitting board of directors. Mr. Gahan and Mr. Coffey led a charge to change the board's composition and powers. At January's second meeting, a new ordinance was passed, but with objections, no final reading was permitted. Calling it an urgent matter, the mayor called a special meeting to move the ordinance up and appoint a board to deal with pressing business.
The entire council had voted once. Every council member knew that a second and third reading of the ordinance would be a pressing agenda item. It was so important that a special meeting was called by the mayor.
Here's the relevant snip from Dick Kaukus's coverage in the Courier-Journal: The vote on the two readings last night was 7-1, with one abstention. Voting yes were Gahan, Coffey, Bob Caesar, Steve Price, Pat McLaughlin, John Gonder and Jack Messer. Kevin Zurschmiede, the only Republican on the council, voted no. Councilwoman Diane Benedetti said she was "confused" about the measure and abstained.
That's right. D5 abstained, citing "confusion." Is the 5th District being represented well when its council member can't decide? This matter wasn't "sprung" on her. It had been debated at length. Several days had passed between the first vote and the special meeting.
It's not the first time she has shown indications that she is the council member only when she is attending meetings. Dozens of regular folks seem to know more about the issues she votes on than does she. What kind of preparation does she undertake in advance of and between meetings.
THE DEFENSE: A council seat only pays about $1,000 a month. The meetings required of a council member take hours and hours away from the family. A single council member can't be counted on to know everything. And if a council member is unsure about an issue, she should abstain rather than cast a "wrong" vote that could come back to haunt her at re-election time. Better safe than sorry.
The Ali Factor
Shadow5 was not there, but our first confirmation that we might not be happy with D5 came when reports trickled out about D5's appalling discourtesy at last year's Floyd County Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner.
A respected local officeholder prevailed on the director of the Muhammad Ali Center to be the keynote speaker. In addition to delivering an informative and inspirational message about peace, unity, diversity, and human progress, the speaker arranged to offer a gift basket that included two annual passes to the Ali Center and a variety of other coveted items.
This gift basket was the grand door prize for the evening. Guess whose ticket was drawn? None other than that of Diane McCartin-Benedetti, candidate for city council. As the event drew to a close, D5 approached the emcee and said that she had no interest in accepting the passes or the gifts in that she had no interest whatsoever in visiting the center. Furthermore, when asked if perhaps someone at her table might wish to accept the prize, she continued that none of those who sat at her table had any interest, either. And reportedly she then went to a central committee member and both rejected the prize and criticized the whole idea and theme of the evening.
D5 showed an appalling lack of grace and good judgment. It raised much speculation as to her motives and attitude toward Muhammad Ali, the Ali Center, and the guest speaker and his message. We need not go into the implications of her discourtesy and from what well her actions were drawn. If nothing else, it was just plain rude.
THE DEFENSE: Maybe she just doesn't like those people. You know, boxers.
The Kochert Legacy Begins to Crumble
And now work begins on the other Larry's legacy...
A long-awaited and much-appreciated move by the new sewer board (created without the input of Diane McCartin-Benedetti, council member for D5) earns the top spot in Friday's editions of The Tribune.
Many have advocated for the city to use its financial and regulatory muscle to encourage preferred development. One of the most immediate ways for the city to do so is to impose or waive various fees.
The city-owned sewer enterprise moved Tuesday to waive the sewer tap-in fees for two Community Housing developments, signaling that they "get" the whole idea of progressive community development.
CHDO builds houses that are ecologically sound and centrally located. They then sell these houses to families eager to become part of the community by becoming homeowners. Every dime saved in construction makes it that much easier for CHDO to leverage its funds and to put more families into affordable housing.
There is nothing subpar about these houses. They are designed to fit within their neighborhoods. Affordable home ownership is, by consensus, a shared goal for this city, and the action taken to reduce the move-in cost of housing by $1,650 is a small price to pay to rebuild the housing stock in our city's urban core. Owner-occupied housing strengthens community. Kudos to the city administration, which urged the waiver, to CHDO and John Miller, who've long sought such relief, and to the unanimous board of Ron Carroll, Bill Utz, and Elizabeth Coyle, who saw the wisdom in preferring one type of development over another.
It's a small step, but an important one. Shadow5 joins the larger community in applauding this first step in smart growth policies.
You might ask what Larry Kochert has to do with all this. Mr. Kochert never understood that the decisions of officeholders can be made for the public good instead of for private benefit. He adamantly opposed all waivers during his service on the board. His rejection by his constituents and the rebuff he was handed when he requested to be appointed to the sewer board once again are signs that New Albany government is beginning to comprehend the whole idea of smart growth.
Kochert not only opposed waivers for preferred housing developments. He refused to even consider a tiered fee structure where applicants could demonstrate why they might deserve even a partial waiver.
The Kochert tyranny is over. This city council and this administration should get to work tearing down the rest of the Kochert legacy, including the anti-democratic tendencies apparent in their public meetings.
A long-awaited and much-appreciated move by the new sewer board (created without the input of Diane McCartin-Benedetti, council member for D5) earns the top spot in Friday's editions of The Tribune.
Many have advocated for the city to use its financial and regulatory muscle to encourage preferred development. One of the most immediate ways for the city to do so is to impose or waive various fees.
The city-owned sewer enterprise moved Tuesday to waive the sewer tap-in fees for two Community Housing developments, signaling that they "get" the whole idea of progressive community development.
CHDO builds houses that are ecologically sound and centrally located. They then sell these houses to families eager to become part of the community by becoming homeowners. Every dime saved in construction makes it that much easier for CHDO to leverage its funds and to put more families into affordable housing.
There is nothing subpar about these houses. They are designed to fit within their neighborhoods. Affordable home ownership is, by consensus, a shared goal for this city, and the action taken to reduce the move-in cost of housing by $1,650 is a small price to pay to rebuild the housing stock in our city's urban core. Owner-occupied housing strengthens community. Kudos to the city administration, which urged the waiver, to CHDO and John Miller, who've long sought such relief, and to the unanimous board of Ron Carroll, Bill Utz, and Elizabeth Coyle, who saw the wisdom in preferring one type of development over another.
It's a small step, but an important one. Shadow5 joins the larger community in applauding this first step in smart growth policies.
You might ask what Larry Kochert has to do with all this. Mr. Kochert never understood that the decisions of officeholders can be made for the public good instead of for private benefit. He adamantly opposed all waivers during his service on the board. His rejection by his constituents and the rebuff he was handed when he requested to be appointed to the sewer board once again are signs that New Albany government is beginning to comprehend the whole idea of smart growth.
Kochert not only opposed waivers for preferred housing developments. He refused to even consider a tiered fee structure where applicants could demonstrate why they might deserve even a partial waiver.
The Kochert tyranny is over. This city council and this administration should get to work tearing down the rest of the Kochert legacy, including the anti-democratic tendencies apparent in their public meetings.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Once In a Blue Moon?
Kudos to Jeff Gahan and Steve Price for your perspicacity on Sunday evening. We will not question your sincerity, and applaud the symbolism of your gesture.
Friday, January 18, 2008
OTOH
Well, I got my friends
And I don't need more friends.
I can count my friends on both hands.
Came an evil man, cut off one hand.
Now I count my friends on the other hand.
- SAMMY HAGAR
How Shadow5 Would Have Voted: Jan. 17, 2008
The original post has been corrected by the editor.
As promised, here is how this shadow (S5) would have voted. Included, to the best of our recollection, is the corresponding vote by Diane McCartin-Benedetti (D5).
A-08-02 to eliminate the $30,00 line item for a superintendent for the Fairview Cemetery.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
A-08-03 to create two deputy mayor positions, an assistant director of operations/IT chief, a public works superintendent, and a concentrated codes enforcement officer.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Nay
R-08-02 to enter into a consent decree to establish a committee of members and plaintiffs to recommend a lawful redrawing of legislative districts and to terminate current litigation.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
R-08-03 to pay from "Riverboat Fund" to digitize city zoning maps.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
R-08-04 to dismiss the council lawsuit against the sewer board and the stormwater board.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
G-08-01 to authorize economic development bonds for Ohio Valley Door.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
G-08-02 to create a 3-member sewer board. a) to suspend the rules and permit all three readings in one meeting; b) to create a 3-member board.
S5 - a) No, b) Aye; D5 - a) no vote, b) Aye
The chart originally and erroneously reported the D5 had voted in favor of the salaries to fund a mayor's office reorganization. Because we differed in our position, a brief explanation is in order. The mayor's office can use all the brain power it can get. These are working positions, not lofty pie-eyed think tank jobs. The last mayor suffered from a too-lean staff. The mayor will be held responsible by the electorate if his staff don't perform, and the necessary money was found without damaging existing services. We believe D5 was making a statement, laying down a marker. We would invite her to clarify just what that statement was and whether she was voting "Nay" on procedural grounds or on the merits. When you're being outvoted 7-2, little harm comes from a "statement" vote intended as a signal to colleagues or constituents. When Steve Price is the only one joining you, though, it might be a little more important to make that signal clear.
As promised, here is how this shadow (S5) would have voted. Included, to the best of our recollection, is the corresponding vote by Diane McCartin-Benedetti (D5).
A-08-02 to eliminate the $30,00 line item for a superintendent for the Fairview Cemetery.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
A-08-03 to create two deputy mayor positions, an assistant director of operations/IT chief, a public works superintendent, and a concentrated codes enforcement officer.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Nay
R-08-02 to enter into a consent decree to establish a committee of members and plaintiffs to recommend a lawful redrawing of legislative districts and to terminate current litigation.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
R-08-03 to pay from "Riverboat Fund" to digitize city zoning maps.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
R-08-04 to dismiss the council lawsuit against the sewer board and the stormwater board.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
G-08-01 to authorize economic development bonds for Ohio Valley Door.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
G-08-02 to create a 3-member sewer board. a) to suspend the rules and permit all three readings in one meeting; b) to create a 3-member board.
S5 - a) No, b) Aye; D5 - a) no vote, b) Aye
The chart originally and erroneously reported the D5 had voted in favor of the salaries to fund a mayor's office reorganization. Because we differed in our position, a brief explanation is in order. The mayor's office can use all the brain power it can get. These are working positions, not lofty pie-eyed think tank jobs. The last mayor suffered from a too-lean staff. The mayor will be held responsible by the electorate if his staff don't perform, and the necessary money was found without damaging existing services. We believe D5 was making a statement, laying down a marker. We would invite her to clarify just what that statement was and whether she was voting "Nay" on procedural grounds or on the merits. When you're being outvoted 7-2, little harm comes from a "statement" vote intended as a signal to colleagues or constituents. When Steve Price is the only one joining you, though, it might be a little more important to make that signal clear.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Hot Bites!
Tiny nuggets of observation from Thursday's New Albany City Council meeting.
ITEM: Mayor Doug England seems determined to establish a clear delineation between the executive and legislative branches of government. Pleading more important obligations, His Honor sent his professional staff to the meeting, but promised to again visit with the council on Feb. 20 to deliver his State of the City address.
ITEM: England was rebuffed in his request to have a sewer board constituted immediately. It is clear that a 3-member board will be created, a motion to suspend the rules and pass a new organizational structure for the utility failed for lack of a second. Sewer business is thus suspended for as many as four more weeks, much to the chagrin of the administration and "new" sewer board attorney Lee Buchanan. The council didn't buy the argument that having no sewer board for the first six weeks of the year is such a critical impediment that it couldn't wait.
ITEM: The previous council had asserted itself with regard to sewer board contracting processes, going so far as to file a lawsuit against the board (Does New Albany v. New Albany qualify as an intra-squad competition?). Thursday night the council instructed its counsel, Jerry Ulrich, to withdraw its suit. It's hard to fault any of the council votes on this one. While we consider the suit to have been ill-advised and marred by rather successful demagoguery, there is some appeal to seeing the court rule on the key question, namely, does a contract to manage operations fall into the category of "professional services," and thus exempt from requirements for competitive bids, or can those professional services be treated as "public works," and thus subject to rigorous (cumbersome?) requirements most often related to time and materials projects. Shadow5 believes the sewer board acted properly, but can't find fault with those who would like a legal ruling. Since you can't just call up Judge Cody and ask him what he thinks, pursuing the lawsuit could be justified.
At-large council member Kevin Zurschmiede made a convincing case in defense of his previous service on the board, but even he claimed to welcome a judicial resolution.
In any case, the suit is dropped. And in several weeks, a sewer board can be so informed.
ITEM: England's tenure is sure to be more productive after council gave final approval to a reorganization of "third floor" functions. The team is now in place and as a local entrepreneur said today, there had better be a quick improvement in performance. A short-lived effort to sever the new code inspector position from the executive reorganization was quashed. An impassioned letter drafted and presented by citizen Jeff Gillenwater on behalf of numerous neighborhood associations made it clear that this enhanced enforcement position was an expected part of the mayor's campaign commitment to further a key progressive aim.
ITEM: We've always maintained that we'll respect disagreement that has a rational basis. Mrs. Benedetti (D5) is prone to using council meetings themselves as the time to educate herself, but showed strong indications that her votes will be based on rationality. As much as we'd like to think that she could be an ally to a progressive vision... (and let's face it, "we" decide what qualifies as progressive, but we do need a label. It can't just be a political party or a geographic zone or a personality. Although "Baylorite" has a nice ring.) ...we'd settle for obvious and apparent cogitation over each recorded vote. On balance, Thursday night was an improvement.
ITEM: Signals. That's the word we were searching for in response to criticisms of this blog from "Ruthanne" last week. Like barometric pressure changes that signal incoming weather, a city council meeting is filled with signals. Ruthanne believed that the only fair report was "not enough data." We saw enough to forecast stormy seas. The predominant mode of civility and reasoned discourse, with predictable lapses from the Wizard of Westendia, signaled good weather ahead. If the climate holds, there is a downside - council meetings will be far less entertaining. The greatest show in town may have moved over to Larry McAllister's County Council. The circus may have changed nights! Now, if McAllister can just declare which party he belongs to...
ITEM: Council demonstrated a measure of parity with the mayor's office this time around. You may recall that the reorganization of the executive offices went unchallenged, even unquestioned in January's first meeting. Without rancor, but with some steel, Mrs. Benedetti demanded at least a cursory explanation from the deputy mayor. And she made it clear that when she requests information that does not issue on a timely basis, she intends to condition her votes accordingly.
ITEM: A truly interesting (and hungry) crowd descended on one downtown nightspot (not Hugh E. Bir's) following the evening's festivities. Civility, if not bonhomie, characterized the night, with Gahang members cohabiting the space with Baylorites and aficionados of the Restoration. Much discussion revolved around the fact that the 2011 1st District campaign fund had ballooned beyond the $9,000 mark. Realtors report a swelling of interest by residents seeking to relocate to the West End sometime in the next two years. Overheard in reference to a certain council member: "Send him back to Birdseye!"
ITEM: Congratulations are in order to Bob Caesar, Pat McLaughlin, Diane Benedetti, John Gonder, Jack Messer, and Kevin Zurschmiede. Those worthies repealed the 2007 ordinance setting district boundaries, the ordinance that Judge Tinder warned would meet with disfavor if returned to his court. Ironically, that restores the horrendously inequitable districts that maintained after the 2000 census. But fear not. Concurrently, the council voted to establish a committee of three disinterested and impartial (at-large) members who will join with three people designated by the plaintiffs in Vogt v. City of New Albany, the redistricting lawsuit, to design a lawful ordinance that presents equal districts based on the only legally relevant census numbers. Yes, sanity has prevailed (well, 66.67% sanity).
One can expect that we'll read a news brief in the local papers soon announcing that a consent decree has been entered that terminates the existing lawsuit in exchange for a binding commitment from the city to abide by the Constitution and its equal protection requirements.
What a long, strange trip. Even in defeat, council member Dan Coffey could not resist restating his slanders of the plaintiffs and his grossly inaccurate history of the case. Perhaps the most repellent piece of his recital was the claim that a unanimous council responded with alacrity to the lawsuit (or, as he put it, "once we were made aware of it"), agreeing that it needed to be fixed. If that were true, wouldn't it have been nice if Mr. Coffey and his recalcitrant colleagues had issued a press release or a legal response acknowledging that. The fact that no such statement ever issued is proof of the lie.
We'll grant that Mr. Coffey may have been so willing to listen to the deposed Karry Ling that he was snookered by the erstwhile D4 council member. But we doubt it.
For the record, Messrs. Gahan, Coffey, and Price rejected the consent decree, preferring to risk the clearly signaled ire of a federal district court judge. How they will defend that position is the first campaign issue for 2011.
ITEM: Some discreet digging revealed that the plaintiffs intend to conduct an exhaustive search for qualified residents willing to serve on the newly authorized committee. Although the right to designate lies with the plaintiffs, the actual appointment will be made by council President Jeff Gahan. Interested applicants should send their submissions to the plaintiffs by e-mail to hlwimp@insightbb.com or to the council president, by e-mail to gahan@insightbb.com or by mail to The Hon. Jeff Gahan, 1122 Eastridge Dr., New Albany, IN 47150. We trust that Mr. Gahan will forward those for approval by the plaintiffs.
ITEM: Mayor Doug England seems determined to establish a clear delineation between the executive and legislative branches of government. Pleading more important obligations, His Honor sent his professional staff to the meeting, but promised to again visit with the council on Feb. 20 to deliver his State of the City address.
ITEM: England was rebuffed in his request to have a sewer board constituted immediately. It is clear that a 3-member board will be created, a motion to suspend the rules and pass a new organizational structure for the utility failed for lack of a second. Sewer business is thus suspended for as many as four more weeks, much to the chagrin of the administration and "new" sewer board attorney Lee Buchanan. The council didn't buy the argument that having no sewer board for the first six weeks of the year is such a critical impediment that it couldn't wait.
ITEM: The previous council had asserted itself with regard to sewer board contracting processes, going so far as to file a lawsuit against the board (Does New Albany v. New Albany qualify as an intra-squad competition?). Thursday night the council instructed its counsel, Jerry Ulrich, to withdraw its suit. It's hard to fault any of the council votes on this one. While we consider the suit to have been ill-advised and marred by rather successful demagoguery, there is some appeal to seeing the court rule on the key question, namely, does a contract to manage operations fall into the category of "professional services," and thus exempt from requirements for competitive bids, or can those professional services be treated as "public works," and thus subject to rigorous (cumbersome?) requirements most often related to time and materials projects. Shadow5 believes the sewer board acted properly, but can't find fault with those who would like a legal ruling. Since you can't just call up Judge Cody and ask him what he thinks, pursuing the lawsuit could be justified.
At-large council member Kevin Zurschmiede made a convincing case in defense of his previous service on the board, but even he claimed to welcome a judicial resolution.
In any case, the suit is dropped. And in several weeks, a sewer board can be so informed.
ITEM: England's tenure is sure to be more productive after council gave final approval to a reorganization of "third floor" functions. The team is now in place and as a local entrepreneur said today, there had better be a quick improvement in performance. A short-lived effort to sever the new code inspector position from the executive reorganization was quashed. An impassioned letter drafted and presented by citizen Jeff Gillenwater on behalf of numerous neighborhood associations made it clear that this enhanced enforcement position was an expected part of the mayor's campaign commitment to further a key progressive aim.
ITEM: We've always maintained that we'll respect disagreement that has a rational basis. Mrs. Benedetti (D5) is prone to using council meetings themselves as the time to educate herself, but showed strong indications that her votes will be based on rationality. As much as we'd like to think that she could be an ally to a progressive vision... (and let's face it, "we" decide what qualifies as progressive, but we do need a label. It can't just be a political party or a geographic zone or a personality. Although "Baylorite" has a nice ring.) ...we'd settle for obvious and apparent cogitation over each recorded vote. On balance, Thursday night was an improvement.
ITEM: Signals. That's the word we were searching for in response to criticisms of this blog from "Ruthanne" last week. Like barometric pressure changes that signal incoming weather, a city council meeting is filled with signals. Ruthanne believed that the only fair report was "not enough data." We saw enough to forecast stormy seas. The predominant mode of civility and reasoned discourse, with predictable lapses from the Wizard of Westendia, signaled good weather ahead. If the climate holds, there is a downside - council meetings will be far less entertaining. The greatest show in town may have moved over to Larry McAllister's County Council. The circus may have changed nights! Now, if McAllister can just declare which party he belongs to...
ITEM: Council demonstrated a measure of parity with the mayor's office this time around. You may recall that the reorganization of the executive offices went unchallenged, even unquestioned in January's first meeting. Without rancor, but with some steel, Mrs. Benedetti demanded at least a cursory explanation from the deputy mayor. And she made it clear that when she requests information that does not issue on a timely basis, she intends to condition her votes accordingly.
ITEM: A truly interesting (and hungry) crowd descended on one downtown nightspot (not Hugh E. Bir's) following the evening's festivities. Civility, if not bonhomie, characterized the night, with Gahang members cohabiting the space with Baylorites and aficionados of the Restoration. Much discussion revolved around the fact that the 2011 1st District campaign fund had ballooned beyond the $9,000 mark. Realtors report a swelling of interest by residents seeking to relocate to the West End sometime in the next two years. Overheard in reference to a certain council member: "Send him back to Birdseye!"
ITEM: Congratulations are in order to Bob Caesar, Pat McLaughlin, Diane Benedetti, John Gonder, Jack Messer, and Kevin Zurschmiede. Those worthies repealed the 2007 ordinance setting district boundaries, the ordinance that Judge Tinder warned would meet with disfavor if returned to his court. Ironically, that restores the horrendously inequitable districts that maintained after the 2000 census. But fear not. Concurrently, the council voted to establish a committee of three disinterested and impartial (at-large) members who will join with three people designated by the plaintiffs in Vogt v. City of New Albany, the redistricting lawsuit, to design a lawful ordinance that presents equal districts based on the only legally relevant census numbers. Yes, sanity has prevailed (well, 66.67% sanity).
One can expect that we'll read a news brief in the local papers soon announcing that a consent decree has been entered that terminates the existing lawsuit in exchange for a binding commitment from the city to abide by the Constitution and its equal protection requirements.
What a long, strange trip. Even in defeat, council member Dan Coffey could not resist restating his slanders of the plaintiffs and his grossly inaccurate history of the case. Perhaps the most repellent piece of his recital was the claim that a unanimous council responded with alacrity to the lawsuit (or, as he put it, "once we were made aware of it"), agreeing that it needed to be fixed. If that were true, wouldn't it have been nice if Mr. Coffey and his recalcitrant colleagues had issued a press release or a legal response acknowledging that. The fact that no such statement ever issued is proof of the lie.
We'll grant that Mr. Coffey may have been so willing to listen to the deposed Karry Ling that he was snookered by the erstwhile D4 council member. But we doubt it.
For the record, Messrs. Gahan, Coffey, and Price rejected the consent decree, preferring to risk the clearly signaled ire of a federal district court judge. How they will defend that position is the first campaign issue for 2011.
ITEM: Some discreet digging revealed that the plaintiffs intend to conduct an exhaustive search for qualified residents willing to serve on the newly authorized committee. Although the right to designate lies with the plaintiffs, the actual appointment will be made by council President Jeff Gahan. Interested applicants should send their submissions to the plaintiffs by e-mail to hlwimp@insightbb.com or to the council president, by e-mail to gahan@insightbb.com or by mail to The Hon. Jeff Gahan, 1122 Eastridge Dr., New Albany, IN 47150. We trust that Mr. Gahan will forward those for approval by the plaintiffs.
A Nod to the Emperor of Cyberspace
In the unlikely event that you came here first, please mouse-click on the following link to the premier blog for news and commentary:
Where'd the Council Go?
Thanks to The New Albanian, who demurred on the fellowship following Thursday night's city council meeting in favor of doing his job. Seriously, we're grateful for the rapid response and we hope the publican rests easy overnight. Selfishly, we're counting on more insightful comment this weekend.
I can't disagree with much that was reported at http://cityofnewalbany.blogspot.com. Theirs is a pretty succinct and accurate report of the evening's events.
Where'd the Council Go?
Thanks to The New Albanian, who demurred on the fellowship following Thursday night's city council meeting in favor of doing his job. Seriously, we're grateful for the rapid response and we hope the publican rests easy overnight. Selfishly, we're counting on more insightful comment this weekend.
I can't disagree with much that was reported at http://cityofnewalbany.blogspot.com. Theirs is a pretty succinct and accurate report of the evening's events.
So Long, Scrivener
It is with no small amount of selfish regret that we bid a fond farewell to Eric Scott Campbell, late of The Tribune.
Within weeks of his arrival, we knew Eric would not be long for our town. And we also knew we would regret it when he was gone.
Through a series of coincidences, Campbell drifted into our town just as the new crew were rebuilding the tattered reputation of the newspaper. We are told that while his spouse was completing professional training, Eric was supporting himself playing poker. The fact that he proceeded to stink up the place when he entered the local poker tournament is no reason to doubt that he didn't need to work as hard as he did as a reporter.
In short, we knew we would have Eric around for only a short time. Fortunately for all of us, the city was his beat, particularly city government. In most respects, he performed at the top of the news game. He reported. He did not editorialize. His questions were always direct and on point and he never fell under the influence of any single source.
We'll admit that there were times that Eric Scott Campbell didn't seem to "get it," times when his perception of a story was hard to reconcile with reality. But the mere fact that we can recall those times is an indication that his work was as good as we could have expected.
The next news operation that lands Campbell will be well-served. New Albany will miss him.
Let's hope the troika at The Tribune has lined up a replacement who comes close to the standard set by that young man.
Within weeks of his arrival, we knew Eric would not be long for our town. And we also knew we would regret it when he was gone.
Through a series of coincidences, Campbell drifted into our town just as the new crew were rebuilding the tattered reputation of the newspaper. We are told that while his spouse was completing professional training, Eric was supporting himself playing poker. The fact that he proceeded to stink up the place when he entered the local poker tournament is no reason to doubt that he didn't need to work as hard as he did as a reporter.
In short, we knew we would have Eric around for only a short time. Fortunately for all of us, the city was his beat, particularly city government. In most respects, he performed at the top of the news game. He reported. He did not editorialize. His questions were always direct and on point and he never fell under the influence of any single source.
We'll admit that there were times that Eric Scott Campbell didn't seem to "get it," times when his perception of a story was hard to reconcile with reality. But the mere fact that we can recall those times is an indication that his work was as good as we could have expected.
The next news operation that lands Campbell will be well-served. New Albany will miss him.
Let's hope the troika at The Tribune has lined up a replacement who comes close to the standard set by that young man.
Beautiful Lies
On such "beautiful lies" are dreams built - Carlo Petrini, founder of Slow Food
Corby Kimmer reported those words in the Jan/Feb issue of The Atlantic and it engaged the old brainpan.
The post title refers to those, like Petrini, who express a somewhat wild and improbable hope (say, the Rockies will win the National League pennant) through the use of "beautiful lies."
Saying that New Albany's downtown is coming back from the dead is one of those beautiful lies, and I'm sure you can provide many other examples.
It's not that those expressions of hope are untruths. They aren't. A beautiful lie can come true, as Petrini has proved again and again.
I'll observe that the only way such beautiful lies come true is if first someone expresses that wild and improbable hope. New Albany is blessed with a growing group of individuals who are expressing them. What's more, these individuals are making the necessary commitment to growing their networks, doing the research, and engaging the imaginations of their peers.
In the coming months, expect to hear more of those expressions from people who know they aren't, in fact, lies, but achievable dreams.
One City. One Destiny.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
A Proposition: Manage the Crisis Instead of Surrendering to Inertia
By intention, I deferred discussion of the single largest component of the crime wave in New Albany in paragraph 15 of the previous posting.
You'll recall that P15 addressed the major categories contained in official reports to the U.S. Department of Justice or the F.B.I. that qualify as the annual crime reports for jurisdictions across America.
We've previously speculated about why Gary, Indiana's crime rate might be reported, in the aggregate, as lower than that of New Albany. It's at least arguable that something is askew in the reporting. But comparison with Gary is small comfort.
Markedly absent from those crime categories are those so-called victimless crimes, namely drug crimes.
I'm sure many of you will differ with this blogger on the seriousness of drug use, abuse, and trafficking. My drugs of choice are legal ones. Mayhaps your drugs of choice aren't, or you believe that they should be legal.
Nonetheless, because they are illegal, they have an inherent tendency to foster crime. You might argue that, like a 5 mph speed limit, the laws are so inane and nonrational that they will never be obeyed.
(I would contend that, in the minds of most New Albanians, STOP signs and traffic signals fall into that category of nonrational laws. In my experience, they seem to be advisory, at best. I've never heard of, much less lived in, a city where the obligation to yield was less observed. This very evening I was nearly T-boned by a driver blithely tooling through a pretty major intersection's red light [sans headlights at 8:40 p.m. on a January night] and nearly creating a family crisis for this one-car family, not to mention a financial and potentially life-threatening crisis.)
But our drug laws are violated so blatantly in New Albany not because of pure lawlessness. They are violated on pure Capitalist principle. It is cheap, and safe, to sell drugs in New Albany. Comparatively, New Albany is the sump pump for the regional drug trade.
Why? Did James Garner or Doug England or Larry Kochert declare that "doin' those drugs's all right with me?" No.
Nope. On the other hand, they did nothing to diminish the trend.
That's as much our fault as it is theirs.
In New Albany, it's simply safe to deal. I have friends who can sit on their porches and watch drug deals go down every day and night. I have acquaintances who can put their child down for a nap while fretting over the scumbag next door who's dealing. And these are the idealists, the pioneers for a New Albany they only dream of.
By choice, not necessity, they have elected to live in the city's urban core, dreaming of a city where they and their progeny can live, recreate, provide for the necessities and luxuries of life, and just dream greater dreams in safety and fulfillment. I'd wager that their choice is 95% lifestyle (sustainable, eco-friendly, communitarian) and 5% investment-based.
Those friends and acquaintances vote and they WILL NOT sit idly by while the city around them deteriorates as a result of a culture of lawlessness.
Other, wiser observers have addressed the equities and livability issues intrinsic to the corrosive non-enforcement of rational community standards. I'm here to address the corrosive effects of drug-related crime on our community.
While our leaders sleep, are they aware that in the criminal underworld, New Albany is seen as an easy mark, a locale where anything goes? I hope not. I hope they are merely ignorant. But whether they know it or not, whether they acknowledge it, it is true. Dealers know that their chances of being caught, of being brought to justice, are minimal in a jurisdiction where the elected representatives, and the residents who elected them, are content with the status quo.
It is a status quo that says "Bring your trade to this side of the river. Our bridges, our highways, our neighborhoods are yours for the asking. Your black market economy is exactly what we want to encourage. Rest assured that we will not invest in our police department and give it the resources and the force complement to actually enforce the law. Whether you are a slumlord or a drug dealer, New Albany is the place for you. We have well maintained interstate highways for transport, we are ensconced within a major population center. You are very unlikely to be hassled by our police or other regulators. Make New Albany your home."
Ridiculous, you say? Why...I know Mayor X personally. I know council member Y. They would never countenance such a policy.
I'd wager that if you are reading this, you know what I say is true. You know that the situation I describe is real.
So now, what do we do?
I will not pretend that there are easy solutions. Cities like ours are increasingly bereft of the financial resources to address our problems. Surrender is certainly one option. The out-of-control, ideologically driven campaign to exempt wealth from taxation and thus starve government of even more resources (or, in the alternative, to drive business out of Indiana in the name of protecting accumulated wealth) makes it imperative that we collectively act now.
Shadow5 proposes that our restored mayor, Doug England, has a unique opportunity to save New Albany, to establish a legacy that will be spoken of long into his senior years and beyond. Longtime residents of New Albany recall the city as a sanctuary of safety, as a community that provided opportunities for families to raise their offspring in an environment of calm, of vitality, and of safety. Doug England can save New Albany. He can be remembered as its savior.
It won't be easy. Naysayers will emerge, as they always do. Investment will be required to make New Albany an exceptional city instead of a victimized city.
And Job One is to attack the culture of lawlessness. For a couple of years we've concentrated on civil regulation. We've called for a regime of enforcement of basic common standards, of economic equity, of increased property values.
I am now convinced that the most important component for revitalizing New Albany is a commitment to modern policing, a commitment to dramatically reducing crime in our neighborhoods, a dedication to making New Albany a city of lawfulness instead of an anarchic shell that residents long to flee or that residents consider as the best they can afford.
And accomplishing that revitalization will require an investment in our police force, a recalibration of our enforcement policies, and a dramatic increase in the force structure.
It is posited that 80% of the crime in this city (property crimes are disproportionately high here) is in one way or another related to drugs. A focused addressing of that problem will require a significant investment in more cops.
How we do that in the face of draconian tax limitations is, admittedly, a difficult question. But the survival of New Albany is at stake.
I believe that creativity is needed. Surely there is a way to capitalize our expenditures on law enforcement and find a way to fund the necessary force increment. Bonding all non-personnel expenditures is a first step. Aggressive pursuit of non-local grants and non-traditional income streams is a necessary second step.
But, at root, what is necessary is a belief in the future. An 80% decrease in the crime rate is not unrealistic, given its underlying causes. That kind of progress would provide the kind of gradual boost in property values that would induce new investment and undergird the tax base in such a way as to make ongoing funding a reality.
New Albany would then be poised to become a mecca for those who appreciate urban living. Instead of managing flight and a spiral into a poverty, future leaders would be challenged to cope with an increasing population that desires life-enhancing city services. Instead of dealing with a declining tax base, the city would be able to rationally manage growth and direct investment toward a 21st Century ideal, a city of vibrant opportunity, a city that will be the envy of its neighbors instead of a regional dumping ground.
And it just may be that achieving that goal would start with pumping about $800,000 (ironically, the exact figure we paid last year in firefighter overtime) into a muscular but measured force complement designed to put the NAPD at the forefront of modern policing methods.
One City. One Destiny.
Do our leaders have the courage to make that destiny a positive one?
You'll recall that P15 addressed the major categories contained in official reports to the U.S. Department of Justice or the F.B.I. that qualify as the annual crime reports for jurisdictions across America.
We've previously speculated about why Gary, Indiana's crime rate might be reported, in the aggregate, as lower than that of New Albany. It's at least arguable that something is askew in the reporting. But comparison with Gary is small comfort.
Markedly absent from those crime categories are those so-called victimless crimes, namely drug crimes.
I'm sure many of you will differ with this blogger on the seriousness of drug use, abuse, and trafficking. My drugs of choice are legal ones. Mayhaps your drugs of choice aren't, or you believe that they should be legal.
Nonetheless, because they are illegal, they have an inherent tendency to foster crime. You might argue that, like a 5 mph speed limit, the laws are so inane and nonrational that they will never be obeyed.
(I would contend that, in the minds of most New Albanians, STOP signs and traffic signals fall into that category of nonrational laws. In my experience, they seem to be advisory, at best. I've never heard of, much less lived in, a city where the obligation to yield was less observed. This very evening I was nearly T-boned by a driver blithely tooling through a pretty major intersection's red light [sans headlights at 8:40 p.m. on a January night] and nearly creating a family crisis for this one-car family, not to mention a financial and potentially life-threatening crisis.)
But our drug laws are violated so blatantly in New Albany not because of pure lawlessness. They are violated on pure Capitalist principle. It is cheap, and safe, to sell drugs in New Albany. Comparatively, New Albany is the sump pump for the regional drug trade.
Why? Did James Garner or Doug England or Larry Kochert declare that "doin' those drugs's all right with me?" No.
Nope. On the other hand, they did nothing to diminish the trend.
That's as much our fault as it is theirs.
In New Albany, it's simply safe to deal. I have friends who can sit on their porches and watch drug deals go down every day and night. I have acquaintances who can put their child down for a nap while fretting over the scumbag next door who's dealing. And these are the idealists, the pioneers for a New Albany they only dream of.
By choice, not necessity, they have elected to live in the city's urban core, dreaming of a city where they and their progeny can live, recreate, provide for the necessities and luxuries of life, and just dream greater dreams in safety and fulfillment. I'd wager that their choice is 95% lifestyle (sustainable, eco-friendly, communitarian) and 5% investment-based.
Those friends and acquaintances vote and they WILL NOT sit idly by while the city around them deteriorates as a result of a culture of lawlessness.
Other, wiser observers have addressed the equities and livability issues intrinsic to the corrosive non-enforcement of rational community standards. I'm here to address the corrosive effects of drug-related crime on our community.
While our leaders sleep, are they aware that in the criminal underworld, New Albany is seen as an easy mark, a locale where anything goes? I hope not. I hope they are merely ignorant. But whether they know it or not, whether they acknowledge it, it is true. Dealers know that their chances of being caught, of being brought to justice, are minimal in a jurisdiction where the elected representatives, and the residents who elected them, are content with the status quo.
It is a status quo that says "Bring your trade to this side of the river. Our bridges, our highways, our neighborhoods are yours for the asking. Your black market economy is exactly what we want to encourage. Rest assured that we will not invest in our police department and give it the resources and the force complement to actually enforce the law. Whether you are a slumlord or a drug dealer, New Albany is the place for you. We have well maintained interstate highways for transport, we are ensconced within a major population center. You are very unlikely to be hassled by our police or other regulators. Make New Albany your home."
Ridiculous, you say? Why...I know Mayor X personally. I know council member Y. They would never countenance such a policy.
I'd wager that if you are reading this, you know what I say is true. You know that the situation I describe is real.
So now, what do we do?
I will not pretend that there are easy solutions. Cities like ours are increasingly bereft of the financial resources to address our problems. Surrender is certainly one option. The out-of-control, ideologically driven campaign to exempt wealth from taxation and thus starve government of even more resources (or, in the alternative, to drive business out of Indiana in the name of protecting accumulated wealth) makes it imperative that we collectively act now.
Shadow5 proposes that our restored mayor, Doug England, has a unique opportunity to save New Albany, to establish a legacy that will be spoken of long into his senior years and beyond. Longtime residents of New Albany recall the city as a sanctuary of safety, as a community that provided opportunities for families to raise their offspring in an environment of calm, of vitality, and of safety. Doug England can save New Albany. He can be remembered as its savior.
It won't be easy. Naysayers will emerge, as they always do. Investment will be required to make New Albany an exceptional city instead of a victimized city.
And Job One is to attack the culture of lawlessness. For a couple of years we've concentrated on civil regulation. We've called for a regime of enforcement of basic common standards, of economic equity, of increased property values.
I am now convinced that the most important component for revitalizing New Albany is a commitment to modern policing, a commitment to dramatically reducing crime in our neighborhoods, a dedication to making New Albany a city of lawfulness instead of an anarchic shell that residents long to flee or that residents consider as the best they can afford.
And accomplishing that revitalization will require an investment in our police force, a recalibration of our enforcement policies, and a dramatic increase in the force structure.
It is posited that 80% of the crime in this city (property crimes are disproportionately high here) is in one way or another related to drugs. A focused addressing of that problem will require a significant investment in more cops.
How we do that in the face of draconian tax limitations is, admittedly, a difficult question. But the survival of New Albany is at stake.
I believe that creativity is needed. Surely there is a way to capitalize our expenditures on law enforcement and find a way to fund the necessary force increment. Bonding all non-personnel expenditures is a first step. Aggressive pursuit of non-local grants and non-traditional income streams is a necessary second step.
But, at root, what is necessary is a belief in the future. An 80% decrease in the crime rate is not unrealistic, given its underlying causes. That kind of progress would provide the kind of gradual boost in property values that would induce new investment and undergird the tax base in such a way as to make ongoing funding a reality.
New Albany would then be poised to become a mecca for those who appreciate urban living. Instead of managing flight and a spiral into a poverty, future leaders would be challenged to cope with an increasing population that desires life-enhancing city services. Instead of dealing with a declining tax base, the city would be able to rationally manage growth and direct investment toward a 21st Century ideal, a city of vibrant opportunity, a city that will be the envy of its neighbors instead of a regional dumping ground.
And it just may be that achieving that goal would start with pumping about $800,000 (ironically, the exact figure we paid last year in firefighter overtime) into a muscular but measured force complement designed to put the NAPD at the forefront of modern policing methods.
One City. One Destiny.
Do our leaders have the courage to make that destiny a positive one?
Monday, January 14, 2008
A Tough One
Last Thursday I was privileged to attend what turned out to be a tremendously enlightening forum on the future of our city. In particular, the forum addressed the current state of law enforcement in New Albany and some potential solutions to the accelerating decline in public safety that we face.
In the aftermath, I've conferred with a number of others who attended the forum and we've agreed on one thing: it would be awfully hard to convey the import of that evening in even a month of blog postings. First, a little background.
New Albany police officers, acting as members of the Fraternal Order of Police, Lee Deich Lodge 99 (FOP), presented what can only be called a "state of the city" report. Lodge president Paul Haub, a city detective, was joined by shift commanders Julie Condra and Eric Higdon and detective Carrie East. Their report was couched in terms of solutions, but was nonetheless jolting.
Many of us had become aware of portions of the dismal diagnosis of the current state of public safety, but none of us had ever been given the opportunity to hear such a comprehensive exposition of the deteriorating state of affairs and the difficult choices we, as a city, must face in the coming months and years.
The overriding sentiment of the attendees was that more, many more people needed to hear this presentation. We were assured that such opportunities would occur.
It is remarkable that such a presentation had never been made before in such a public way. The FOP leadership, during the past 18 months, recognized that much of what they "knew" had never been shared with the residents of New Albany, the people most affected by the structural and political impediments to modern law enforcement.
The FOP, which serves as the collective bargaining unit, or union, for our police force, recognized that it had become imperative to make the public aware of these critical deficiencies.
Traditionally, the city executive and force leadership demurred from frank talk, at least in public, about these problems. It was believed, perhaps rightly, that blunt discussion of the problems the NAPD faces might reflect badly, that it might lead to a belief that our force was failing to perform its job. It is to the credit of the incoming administration, and particularly new chief Greg Crabtree, and the union that these serving officers were permitted, indeed encouraged, to engage in this serious educational effort.
This blogger would be doing a disservice to try to relay all that was learned. May I just say this: You MUST take advantage of the next opportunity to hear this presentation, which we are assured will come. Hearing it from me won't have nearly the impact it will have once you've heard it from our line officers.
But I will try to give you a few highlights so you can decide for yourself if it's worth your time.
The Tribune reported recently that the national average force strength for municipal law enforcement agencies is 2.4 officers per 1,000 in population. For New Albany, measured against the most recent U.S. Census department estimate of ~37,000 residents, that would translate into 88 officers. That counts Ottumwa, Iowa and Berkeley, California. It includes Atlanta, Georgia and Midway, Kentucky.
Do you know the current force complement of New Albany's police department? 55 officers. By the time you read this, the number might be nearer to 60 officers. Add three in senior management (chief, assistant chief, and major) and you get to 63. Consider that half a score of officers are expected to retire within the next three years and you begin to see that New Albany has, through design or neglect, decided over the past decades to divert resources from law enforcement. That must change.
It is often bandied about that New Albany's police force is "the highest-paid force in the state of Indiana." Not true. Not even close. It might have been true for a year or two in the 90s, but it is no longer the case.
Consider that these 55 officers, or 55 plus a few more first-year officers, must cover 21 shifts each week, holidays, weekends, what have you. Consider further that each of these officers is entitled to vacations of up to four weeks, comp time, personal time, holiday time, and convalescent leave when injured, and the complement is further reduced.
For the sake of argument, let's say that 50 officers are available during any given week. With 21 shifts to cover, that means these 50 officers can provide 250 shifts a week. Divide by 21 and you get something like 12 officers per shift. But even our restricted force is organized to have evidence technicians, shift supervisors, and an investigative corps of detectives. Subtract a few undercover officers and you quickly see that on any given shift on any given day, New Albany is served by about 7 cops. That's seven available to respond to traffic accidents, traffic enforcement, domestic disturbances, assaults, rapes, robberies, and burglaries. Major cases don't happen every day, but those impose an added burden on the force structure.
We, the civilians, might argue whether that is enough for a city like ours. But there is one group in our midst that has made its decision. That group has decided that New Albany is underpoliced.
That group knows that New Albany's residents and New Albany's leaders have decided that 55 or 60 officers is enough. They know better.
Our lack of seriousness about making New Albany safe and law-abiding has put out the welcome mat to lawbreakers.
I think it's fair to say that in much the way that New Albany has figuratively put out a sign welcoming sprawl and another sign welcoming slumlords, it has invested in neon signage that says "Welcom Crimnals." Typo intended.
Don't take my word for it. Seek out an officer (off-duty, please) and ask him or her whether the trend for crime in New Albany, if all things remain the same, is positive or otherwise.
I'll concede that skepticism is legitimate. It's remotely possible that someone could argue in support of the current "getting-by" approach to law enforcement.
We were surprised (and you will be, too) by who among our elected leaders have gotten the message. We have no reason to believe they have found a solution yet. It will take creativity and boldness and great courage to change the direction. But I came away convinced that there is hope that New Albany can become a haven, a relatively crime-free sanctuary, and a peaceful, thriving city with an unlimited future.
We are not that city today. How you respond in the next few months will make all the difference.
NA Shadow Council will be sure to pass on the dates of future FOP public appearances. It's up to you whether you avail yourself of the opportunity to confront the reality.
In the aftermath, I've conferred with a number of others who attended the forum and we've agreed on one thing: it would be awfully hard to convey the import of that evening in even a month of blog postings. First, a little background.
New Albany police officers, acting as members of the Fraternal Order of Police, Lee Deich Lodge 99 (FOP), presented what can only be called a "state of the city" report. Lodge president Paul Haub, a city detective, was joined by shift commanders Julie Condra and Eric Higdon and detective Carrie East. Their report was couched in terms of solutions, but was nonetheless jolting.
Many of us had become aware of portions of the dismal diagnosis of the current state of public safety, but none of us had ever been given the opportunity to hear such a comprehensive exposition of the deteriorating state of affairs and the difficult choices we, as a city, must face in the coming months and years.
The overriding sentiment of the attendees was that more, many more people needed to hear this presentation. We were assured that such opportunities would occur.
It is remarkable that such a presentation had never been made before in such a public way. The FOP leadership, during the past 18 months, recognized that much of what they "knew" had never been shared with the residents of New Albany, the people most affected by the structural and political impediments to modern law enforcement.
The FOP, which serves as the collective bargaining unit, or union, for our police force, recognized that it had become imperative to make the public aware of these critical deficiencies.
Traditionally, the city executive and force leadership demurred from frank talk, at least in public, about these problems. It was believed, perhaps rightly, that blunt discussion of the problems the NAPD faces might reflect badly, that it might lead to a belief that our force was failing to perform its job. It is to the credit of the incoming administration, and particularly new chief Greg Crabtree, and the union that these serving officers were permitted, indeed encouraged, to engage in this serious educational effort.
This blogger would be doing a disservice to try to relay all that was learned. May I just say this: You MUST take advantage of the next opportunity to hear this presentation, which we are assured will come. Hearing it from me won't have nearly the impact it will have once you've heard it from our line officers.
But I will try to give you a few highlights so you can decide for yourself if it's worth your time.
The Tribune reported recently that the national average force strength for municipal law enforcement agencies is 2.4 officers per 1,000 in population. For New Albany, measured against the most recent U.S. Census department estimate of ~37,000 residents, that would translate into 88 officers. That counts Ottumwa, Iowa and Berkeley, California. It includes Atlanta, Georgia and Midway, Kentucky.
Do you know the current force complement of New Albany's police department? 55 officers. By the time you read this, the number might be nearer to 60 officers. Add three in senior management (chief, assistant chief, and major) and you get to 63. Consider that half a score of officers are expected to retire within the next three years and you begin to see that New Albany has, through design or neglect, decided over the past decades to divert resources from law enforcement. That must change.
It is often bandied about that New Albany's police force is "the highest-paid force in the state of Indiana." Not true. Not even close. It might have been true for a year or two in the 90s, but it is no longer the case.
Consider that these 55 officers, or 55 plus a few more first-year officers, must cover 21 shifts each week, holidays, weekends, what have you. Consider further that each of these officers is entitled to vacations of up to four weeks, comp time, personal time, holiday time, and convalescent leave when injured, and the complement is further reduced.
For the sake of argument, let's say that 50 officers are available during any given week. With 21 shifts to cover, that means these 50 officers can provide 250 shifts a week. Divide by 21 and you get something like 12 officers per shift. But even our restricted force is organized to have evidence technicians, shift supervisors, and an investigative corps of detectives. Subtract a few undercover officers and you quickly see that on any given shift on any given day, New Albany is served by about 7 cops. That's seven available to respond to traffic accidents, traffic enforcement, domestic disturbances, assaults, rapes, robberies, and burglaries. Major cases don't happen every day, but those impose an added burden on the force structure.
We, the civilians, might argue whether that is enough for a city like ours. But there is one group in our midst that has made its decision. That group has decided that New Albany is underpoliced.
That group knows that New Albany's residents and New Albany's leaders have decided that 55 or 60 officers is enough. They know better.
Our lack of seriousness about making New Albany safe and law-abiding has put out the welcome mat to lawbreakers.
I think it's fair to say that in much the way that New Albany has figuratively put out a sign welcoming sprawl and another sign welcoming slumlords, it has invested in neon signage that says "Welcom Crimnals." Typo intended.
Don't take my word for it. Seek out an officer (off-duty, please) and ask him or her whether the trend for crime in New Albany, if all things remain the same, is positive or otherwise.
I'll concede that skepticism is legitimate. It's remotely possible that someone could argue in support of the current "getting-by" approach to law enforcement.
We were surprised (and you will be, too) by who among our elected leaders have gotten the message. We have no reason to believe they have found a solution yet. It will take creativity and boldness and great courage to change the direction. But I came away convinced that there is hope that New Albany can become a haven, a relatively crime-free sanctuary, and a peaceful, thriving city with an unlimited future.
We are not that city today. How you respond in the next few months will make all the difference.
NA Shadow Council will be sure to pass on the dates of future FOP public appearances. It's up to you whether you avail yourself of the opportunity to confront the reality.
One City, One Destiny
You will most likely see a recurrence of that theme here over the next four years. One City. One Destiny.
Whether you like it or not, the fate of your neighbors is the fate of the neighborhood, the larger community, and New Albany as a whole. When the city progresses, we all share in that progress. When it falters, we all suffer.
New Albany is infamous for its grudges, its personality politics. And whether you choose to believe it or not, Shadow5 isn't interested in personalities. Rather, it is policy that matters.
As a quick aside, we believe it is perfectly legitimate to draw attention to individuals and institutions who lie, intentionally or ignorantly. We insist on the right, nay, the duty to question the credibility of those who play fast and loose with the truth. Those persons, those personalities, demonstrate their lack of credibility and will be challenged. But even that is "policy." It will be the policy of this blog to challenge inaccuracies and we will not shy from calling them what they are - lies.
But back to the issue at hand. Decisions, particularly by elected officials, have consequences. When we believe a decision is wrong, we'll say so. But in speaking out, we recognize a duty to explain the contra position and to explain why we believe those decisions deserve to be challenged.
We've recently been scolded for being "unfair" and overly pessimistic in our observations about this new city council. We are unapologetic. Every citizen has a role to play. If we can motivate our readers to look beneath the surface, if we can instigate a conversation about the path before us by being brusque, it's a small price to pay. It's all well and good to be liked. But it's not everything.
I recently had a conversation with a friend about the subject. We agreed that one of the definitions of friendship is that friends have the right to call "bullshit" on one another. In my attitude toward New Albany and its polity, I consider myself a friend. If someone beats up on my friend, I'll come to my friend's defense. If someone tries to rip off my friend, I'll do everything I can to prevent that. If someone is pulling a con job on my friend, I will speak out loud and say so. And if my "friend" is about to step into a hole, I'll haul my friend back from the brink if I can.
I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes I call "bullshit." Nobody invited me to do so - I simply assumed that my offer of friendship entitled me to do so.
Some may doubt my intentions. That is their right. I am serene in knowing that my intentions are to show nothing but friendship to New Albany and to all who are that city's friends. And if I see someone or some ones trying to do harm to my friend New Albany, I'll do everything in my power to sound the alarm, rally its friends, and defend New Albany from its enemies.
Yes, I know that using the "E" word will offend the sensibilities of some. Perhaps you find "foes" or "opponents" to be more politic. Maybe you would call on me to concede that all differences of opinion are honest differences.
Some are honest differences. Some are not. Some acts that harm my friend New Albany are unintended. And some are willful, spiteful, and long-lasting.
But acts that harm my friend New Albany do harm whether they are done from ignorance or malice.
We've made it fairly simple for you to disagree with our approach or our opinions. Registering as a blogger is not that big a burden. And it will never be our intention to argue anyone into the ground. Extended discussion, particularly on a blog, does not necessarily mean extended disagreement. We don't consider it a hostile act to extend our comments or even to defend them. The exchange of opinions can be edifying to our readership, especially when the comments section spotlights disagreements. And the initiating post can be polished by additional "rubbing" in the rock polisher that is the comments section.
As the prototypical local TV pundit might say, we invite responsible opposing comments.
Whether you like it or not, the fate of your neighbors is the fate of the neighborhood, the larger community, and New Albany as a whole. When the city progresses, we all share in that progress. When it falters, we all suffer.
New Albany is infamous for its grudges, its personality politics. And whether you choose to believe it or not, Shadow5 isn't interested in personalities. Rather, it is policy that matters.
As a quick aside, we believe it is perfectly legitimate to draw attention to individuals and institutions who lie, intentionally or ignorantly. We insist on the right, nay, the duty to question the credibility of those who play fast and loose with the truth. Those persons, those personalities, demonstrate their lack of credibility and will be challenged. But even that is "policy." It will be the policy of this blog to challenge inaccuracies and we will not shy from calling them what they are - lies.
But back to the issue at hand. Decisions, particularly by elected officials, have consequences. When we believe a decision is wrong, we'll say so. But in speaking out, we recognize a duty to explain the contra position and to explain why we believe those decisions deserve to be challenged.
We've recently been scolded for being "unfair" and overly pessimistic in our observations about this new city council. We are unapologetic. Every citizen has a role to play. If we can motivate our readers to look beneath the surface, if we can instigate a conversation about the path before us by being brusque, it's a small price to pay. It's all well and good to be liked. But it's not everything.
I recently had a conversation with a friend about the subject. We agreed that one of the definitions of friendship is that friends have the right to call "bullshit" on one another. In my attitude toward New Albany and its polity, I consider myself a friend. If someone beats up on my friend, I'll come to my friend's defense. If someone tries to rip off my friend, I'll do everything I can to prevent that. If someone is pulling a con job on my friend, I will speak out loud and say so. And if my "friend" is about to step into a hole, I'll haul my friend back from the brink if I can.
I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes I call "bullshit." Nobody invited me to do so - I simply assumed that my offer of friendship entitled me to do so.
Some may doubt my intentions. That is their right. I am serene in knowing that my intentions are to show nothing but friendship to New Albany and to all who are that city's friends. And if I see someone or some ones trying to do harm to my friend New Albany, I'll do everything in my power to sound the alarm, rally its friends, and defend New Albany from its enemies.
Yes, I know that using the "E" word will offend the sensibilities of some. Perhaps you find "foes" or "opponents" to be more politic. Maybe you would call on me to concede that all differences of opinion are honest differences.
Some are honest differences. Some are not. Some acts that harm my friend New Albany are unintended. And some are willful, spiteful, and long-lasting.
But acts that harm my friend New Albany do harm whether they are done from ignorance or malice.
We've made it fairly simple for you to disagree with our approach or our opinions. Registering as a blogger is not that big a burden. And it will never be our intention to argue anyone into the ground. Extended discussion, particularly on a blog, does not necessarily mean extended disagreement. We don't consider it a hostile act to extend our comments or even to defend them. The exchange of opinions can be edifying to our readership, especially when the comments section spotlights disagreements. And the initiating post can be polished by additional "rubbing" in the rock polisher that is the comments section.
As the prototypical local TV pundit might say, we invite responsible opposing comments.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Orange You?
We will be joining like thinkers across America today in wearing orange to protest torture and indefinite detention and symbolizing our sadness and disgust with the national shame that is Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-Ray.
It has been nearly six years since the first detainees arrived there.
After hundreds of detentions and two Supreme Court decisions rejecting the administration's detention policies at Gitmo, the legal status of the detainees there remains unresolved and the fight continues to end unlawful detention and the denial of due process.
The ACLU is one of four organizations that have been granted status as human rights observers at the military commission proceedings. When the tribunals began in 2004, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero and two ACLU international human rights lawyers attended the proceedings and blogged about the experience so Americans could know the truth of Guantánamo.
The ACLU has continued to hold government leadership accountable by filing Freedom of Information Act requests for documents that reveal systemic torture to prisoners held in U.S. custody. So far, more than 100,000 pages of government documents detailing the torture and abuse of detainees.
In addition, the ACLU and Human Rights First have charged that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld bears direct responsibility for the torture and abuse of detainees, and filed a complaint in federal court in January 2006 on behalf of nine men subjected to torture and abuse under Rumsfeld's command.
Blue Nights, Blue Knights
It was an illuminating evening for those of us who were able to make it to the FOP forum at Destinations on Thursday. It's regrettable that more New Albanians weren't able to attend.
I learned more in 3 1/2 hours (edited from the original 2 1/2 hours) with our city cops than at any other public event I've attended in this town. There was simply too much information to relate here, but if another forum is scheduled, I urge you to make the time for it.
There was nothing condescending or shallow about the presentation. There were no tips for foiling burglars, no reminders to support the neighborhood crime watch. This was a critical diagnosis of the state of law enforcement in New Albany and a studied exposition of some of the means and methods at our disposal to correct the problems.
That's right. Problems. The politic way to discuss such things is to first euphemize them. Problems become "concerns." Challenges become "opportunities."
Your local police officers have lifted the veil and decided that perhaps "we" don't know all the things "they" know. A few citizens have taken the time to find these things out, but as a general rule, the public (and their representatives) have remained ignorant of what can only be called an existential crisis for our city.
If you care about it, if you believe you should know about it, watch for other such opportunities. I'm sure there will be others.
Interestingly, not one member of the city council was able to attend the forum. But those who did will surely be asking their representatives two questions: Do you know about this? and What are you going to do about it?
I learned more in 3 1/2 hours (edited from the original 2 1/2 hours) with our city cops than at any other public event I've attended in this town. There was simply too much information to relate here, but if another forum is scheduled, I urge you to make the time for it.
There was nothing condescending or shallow about the presentation. There were no tips for foiling burglars, no reminders to support the neighborhood crime watch. This was a critical diagnosis of the state of law enforcement in New Albany and a studied exposition of some of the means and methods at our disposal to correct the problems.
That's right. Problems. The politic way to discuss such things is to first euphemize them. Problems become "concerns." Challenges become "opportunities."
Your local police officers have lifted the veil and decided that perhaps "we" don't know all the things "they" know. A few citizens have taken the time to find these things out, but as a general rule, the public (and their representatives) have remained ignorant of what can only be called an existential crisis for our city.
If you care about it, if you believe you should know about it, watch for other such opportunities. I'm sure there will be others.
Interestingly, not one member of the city council was able to attend the forum. But those who did will surely be asking their representatives two questions: Do you know about this? and What are you going to do about it?
Respect
Left unsaid until the end of the week is this thought from Monday's City Council meeting. Learning from frequent contributor iamhoosier, shadow5 decided to see if the initial impression lingered for more than a day or two...you know, "on the other hand."
Mayor England, who has promised his State of the City address for next month, waxed eloquently about the relationship he seeks with council and with his constituents.
Much as a civil libertarian feels a shiver up his spine when he hears of extra-legal means of law enforcement, this observer couldn't avoid an eye-squint at certain moments of the mayoral address.
Mr. England promised an open door policy - with the proviso that he be treated with respect. Offering with one hand to treat all comers with respect, he unintentionally (?) signaled that anyone unwilling to treat him with respect might face not only a closed, but a locked door.
It was subtle. But it sounded like a warning more than an invitation. Should a mayor seeking to rehabilitate a prior image as an officeholder who rewarded friends and punished foes be quite so blunt about stating whom he will serve. Whether a petitioner did, or ever will vote for England shouldn't be a prerequisite for receiving constituent service from the mayor's office.
It marred an otherwise flawless presentation that got the mayor's tenure off to a great start. Perhaps His Honor would have been better served by asking for "civility" rather than respect. I'm sure that's what he meant.
It's just that respect should be commanded, not demanded. That is a subtlety, granted, but an important one. It is by this mayor's initiatives that he can command respect. Demanding respect is something altogether different.
On the other hand...
Mayor England, who has promised his State of the City address for next month, waxed eloquently about the relationship he seeks with council and with his constituents.
Much as a civil libertarian feels a shiver up his spine when he hears of extra-legal means of law enforcement, this observer couldn't avoid an eye-squint at certain moments of the mayoral address.
Mr. England promised an open door policy - with the proviso that he be treated with respect. Offering with one hand to treat all comers with respect, he unintentionally (?) signaled that anyone unwilling to treat him with respect might face not only a closed, but a locked door.
It was subtle. But it sounded like a warning more than an invitation. Should a mayor seeking to rehabilitate a prior image as an officeholder who rewarded friends and punished foes be quite so blunt about stating whom he will serve. Whether a petitioner did, or ever will vote for England shouldn't be a prerequisite for receiving constituent service from the mayor's office.
It marred an otherwise flawless presentation that got the mayor's tenure off to a great start. Perhaps His Honor would have been better served by asking for "civility" rather than respect. I'm sure that's what he meant.
It's just that respect should be commanded, not demanded. That is a subtlety, granted, but an important one. It is by this mayor's initiatives that he can command respect. Demanding respect is something altogether different.
On the other hand...
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Head Games
We can't help it, but sometimes we simply have to speculate about what goes through the minds of our council members. The Lucy Van Pelt strategy used by, among others, Pat McLaughlin (D4), to yank the football from the tee just as Jack Messer prepared to kick off a new council year, positively begs for psychoanalysis. Here's my take, speculative as it is.
While I had looked forward to a council presided over by the senior at-large council member, I could never quite trust the head counts I overheard. Messer was clearly the best choice, and Jack was determined to lead the council in a focused and deliberate manner, independent of but collaborative with the incoming administration. In fact, more than one of the new council members had sought him out and encouraged him to run for president. Weeks prior to being sworn in, all the council members had the opportunity to meet and discuss goals for the next four years. Messer expected to win and was looking forward to the challenge. He was willing to step back from the debate and preside impartially. So what happened to prevent that?
McLaughlin, following the established pattern for New Albany Democrats, ran a careful, if not timid, campaign. He, on the advice of his counselors, decided to take no stands, support no positions, and promise nothing to anyone. His platform was nonexistent. Even if Pat didn't know where the middle of the road was, he was determined to find that middle and plant himself there. This seems to have carried over into his term.
Pat likes (and is liked by) practically everyone. If you've read this blog before you know I don't consider that to be a pre-eminent qualification for leadership - a person who tries to keep everybody happy ultimately satisfies no one.
Having staked out that position, Pat was supremely vulnerable to being persuaded to seek what I am sure he understands to be a compromise. It was a given that Dan Coffey and Steve Price would have cut off their hands before voting for Messer. Let's call it a violent opposition to having Jack in the chair. Three or four other council members would have gagged before voting to support Coffey. But Coffey wasn't running, at least not after he read the tea leaves.
How then, could Coffey prevent Messer's election? He couldn't run and beat him. The solution was simple, however. During the past year since Jeff Gahan stepped down from the chair and began to engage more fiercely in the debate, Coffey occasionally supported Gahan, resulting in an alliance that grew more solid during the insane attempt to give away the municipal sewer utility to an unaccountable board. Both Coffey and Gahan saw that as a way to handcuff elected officials. That it would have removed accountability to the voters was a price they were both willing to pay if it would rein in what they believed to be a secretive and corrupt operation.
Gahan and Coffey rarely came into conflict in 2007 and by the end of the term were voting in lockstep most of the time. The "reasonable" Gahan respected Coffey's legitimacy and Coffey returned that respect. That made Gahan the perfect tool to accomplish Coffey's objective of keeping Messer out of the chair.
With a candidate in place to oppose Messer, Coffey needed only to pick up one more vote (Gahan and Coffey, of course; Price, obviously; and it appears that Benedetti is determined to learn at Master Coffey's institution of "higher" learning).
Imagine, then, this confidential gathering, in twos and threes.
Jack "can't get along" with Price and Coffey (a reason to endorse, to my way of thinking, but I digress). That duo, inalterably opposed to Messer, put that forward as evidence that Jack can't "bring the council together." Well, duh! Gahan, on the other hand, hasn't opposed the dumb ideas put forward by D1 and D2. During his terms in the chair he permitted Coffey to ramble on with his "expert" opinions, his "legal expertise," his sophistry, and his demagoguery - something Messer could be counted on to put a limit on. So Price and Coffey "could" support Gahan.
Hey, Pat. You don't want to start out your term with a situation where the president doesn't have the support of the whole council, do you? Then Gahan's your man. You know him, you like him, he's pretty smart. And he's experienced. He has even been president of the council before.
So, in essence, Pat McLaughlin, hewing to the center line, fell for the oldest trick in the book.
Here's another translation: We despise Jack because he doesn't fall for our schtick. Jeff at least pretends to. So, because Jack would resist our idiocies, we should have a veto. We should be able to stop his election. You, Pat, are our patsy. With your vote, we can veto Jack. Everybody wins, because we wind up with Gahan as the compromise, and you like compromise, don't you? Why can't we all just get along?
Analyzing why Benedetti would throw away her incumbency by becoming a disciple of the Wizard of Westendia would take too long. Let's just assume she has thrown it away and start planning for 2011.
Oh yeah. John Gonder. Let no one forget that Gonder, too, cast his vote for Gahan. I have my thoughts on that one, too. But since it's raining so hard, I think I'll keep my powder dry for the time being and let John explain his vote in his own good time. Tick, tock.
While I had looked forward to a council presided over by the senior at-large council member, I could never quite trust the head counts I overheard. Messer was clearly the best choice, and Jack was determined to lead the council in a focused and deliberate manner, independent of but collaborative with the incoming administration. In fact, more than one of the new council members had sought him out and encouraged him to run for president. Weeks prior to being sworn in, all the council members had the opportunity to meet and discuss goals for the next four years. Messer expected to win and was looking forward to the challenge. He was willing to step back from the debate and preside impartially. So what happened to prevent that?
McLaughlin, following the established pattern for New Albany Democrats, ran a careful, if not timid, campaign. He, on the advice of his counselors, decided to take no stands, support no positions, and promise nothing to anyone. His platform was nonexistent. Even if Pat didn't know where the middle of the road was, he was determined to find that middle and plant himself there. This seems to have carried over into his term.
Pat likes (and is liked by) practically everyone. If you've read this blog before you know I don't consider that to be a pre-eminent qualification for leadership - a person who tries to keep everybody happy ultimately satisfies no one.
Having staked out that position, Pat was supremely vulnerable to being persuaded to seek what I am sure he understands to be a compromise. It was a given that Dan Coffey and Steve Price would have cut off their hands before voting for Messer. Let's call it a violent opposition to having Jack in the chair. Three or four other council members would have gagged before voting to support Coffey. But Coffey wasn't running, at least not after he read the tea leaves.
How then, could Coffey prevent Messer's election? He couldn't run and beat him. The solution was simple, however. During the past year since Jeff Gahan stepped down from the chair and began to engage more fiercely in the debate, Coffey occasionally supported Gahan, resulting in an alliance that grew more solid during the insane attempt to give away the municipal sewer utility to an unaccountable board. Both Coffey and Gahan saw that as a way to handcuff elected officials. That it would have removed accountability to the voters was a price they were both willing to pay if it would rein in what they believed to be a secretive and corrupt operation.
Gahan and Coffey rarely came into conflict in 2007 and by the end of the term were voting in lockstep most of the time. The "reasonable" Gahan respected Coffey's legitimacy and Coffey returned that respect. That made Gahan the perfect tool to accomplish Coffey's objective of keeping Messer out of the chair.
With a candidate in place to oppose Messer, Coffey needed only to pick up one more vote (Gahan and Coffey, of course; Price, obviously; and it appears that Benedetti is determined to learn at Master Coffey's institution of "higher" learning).
Imagine, then, this confidential gathering, in twos and threes.
Jack "can't get along" with Price and Coffey (a reason to endorse, to my way of thinking, but I digress). That duo, inalterably opposed to Messer, put that forward as evidence that Jack can't "bring the council together." Well, duh! Gahan, on the other hand, hasn't opposed the dumb ideas put forward by D1 and D2. During his terms in the chair he permitted Coffey to ramble on with his "expert" opinions, his "legal expertise," his sophistry, and his demagoguery - something Messer could be counted on to put a limit on. So Price and Coffey "could" support Gahan.
Hey, Pat. You don't want to start out your term with a situation where the president doesn't have the support of the whole council, do you? Then Gahan's your man. You know him, you like him, he's pretty smart. And he's experienced. He has even been president of the council before.
So, in essence, Pat McLaughlin, hewing to the center line, fell for the oldest trick in the book.
Here's another translation: We despise Jack because he doesn't fall for our schtick. Jeff at least pretends to. So, because Jack would resist our idiocies, we should have a veto. We should be able to stop his election. You, Pat, are our patsy. With your vote, we can veto Jack. Everybody wins, because we wind up with Gahan as the compromise, and you like compromise, don't you? Why can't we all just get along?
Analyzing why Benedetti would throw away her incumbency by becoming a disciple of the Wizard of Westendia would take too long. Let's just assume she has thrown it away and start planning for 2011.
Oh yeah. John Gonder. Let no one forget that Gonder, too, cast his vote for Gahan. I have my thoughts on that one, too. But since it's raining so hard, I think I'll keep my powder dry for the time being and let John explain his vote in his own good time. Tick, tock.
Jan. 7 - How Shadow5 Would Have Voted
We'll try our best to report how we could have voted after each city council meeting. As more "shadows" join us, we'll see to it that those "votes" are recorded too. Until then, we'll "cast" our votes on each issue and compare it to the votes of the D5 incumbent, Diane Benedetti.
Election of officers
S5 - Messer for president; D5 - Gahan for president.
S5 - Messer for vice president; D5 - Coffey for vice president.
Gahan's election was a jarring development. All who allied themselves with Mr. Coffey should be ashamed of themselves. The very best face that can be put on it is that Gahan was a compromise candidate, but that compromise was with Coffey and his protege. Mr. McLaughlin's vote was a severe disappointment. That D5 took her lead from Coffey was not totally unexpected. Mrs. Benedetti did not distinguish herself. She did not serve her district's interests.
R-08-01
Transfer of funds from various departments to pay for new "concentrated code enforcement" officer, deputy director of operations, two deputy mayors, and creation of new post of public works coordinator.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye.
S5 actually believed that the Garner administration needed at least one more professional on the mayoral staff and this realignment of salaries fits that bill for the England regime. We've previously commented on the sleight-of-hand and rhetorical flourish in the way it was presented and would have made sure that the record reflected that the council was not fooled by the attempted prestidigitation. Nonetheless, our vote would have been aye.
A-08-01
Salary appropriations for city administration
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye.
Z-08-01
Approval of a zoning change for a parcel on the east side of Grant Line Road, north of the Lee Hamilton Highway (presumed to be a drive-through coffee shop and mini-storage warehouses)
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye.
Not my idea of progress, but a perfectly lawful use for the land, no matter how unappealing. Building "out" should bear a higher cost than investment in the city's core, however that might be designated.
Z-07-22
Approval of a zoning change (PUDD) for a plot on Charlestown Road opposite the Kroger store. McCartin development would include two restaurants, a bank, a coffee shop, and a sandwich shop on the C-Town Rd. frontage, backed by 87 patio homes and apartments. This was approved by the Plan Commission with 27 conditions.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Nay, along with all members.
While we can reliably be counted on to resist what "The Gary" believes constitutes responsible development, the planning staff made a good case that this particular development constituted building "in" relative to many other proposals, and that such should be encouraged. A close call, but S5 would have acceded to the recommendation of the Plan Commission while laying the groundwork for a council policy statement that would impose impact fees on developments outside the urban enterprise zone. D5 has drawn criticism for even voting on her brother's submission. We believe Benedetti should have recused herself, although a scenario can be constructed whereby even a recusal could have been a conflict of interest. Brandon Smith's suggestion that she absent herself from the room seems to be the best compromise on this one for the incumbent.
Election of officers
S5 - Messer for president; D5 - Gahan for president.
S5 - Messer for vice president; D5 - Coffey for vice president.
Gahan's election was a jarring development. All who allied themselves with Mr. Coffey should be ashamed of themselves. The very best face that can be put on it is that Gahan was a compromise candidate, but that compromise was with Coffey and his protege. Mr. McLaughlin's vote was a severe disappointment. That D5 took her lead from Coffey was not totally unexpected. Mrs. Benedetti did not distinguish herself. She did not serve her district's interests.
R-08-01
Transfer of funds from various departments to pay for new "concentrated code enforcement" officer, deputy director of operations, two deputy mayors, and creation of new post of public works coordinator.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye.
S5 actually believed that the Garner administration needed at least one more professional on the mayoral staff and this realignment of salaries fits that bill for the England regime. We've previously commented on the sleight-of-hand and rhetorical flourish in the way it was presented and would have made sure that the record reflected that the council was not fooled by the attempted prestidigitation. Nonetheless, our vote would have been aye.
A-08-01
Salary appropriations for city administration
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye.
Z-08-01
Approval of a zoning change for a parcel on the east side of Grant Line Road, north of the Lee Hamilton Highway (presumed to be a drive-through coffee shop and mini-storage warehouses)
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye.
Not my idea of progress, but a perfectly lawful use for the land, no matter how unappealing. Building "out" should bear a higher cost than investment in the city's core, however that might be designated.
Z-07-22
Approval of a zoning change (PUDD) for a plot on Charlestown Road opposite the Kroger store. McCartin development would include two restaurants, a bank, a coffee shop, and a sandwich shop on the C-Town Rd. frontage, backed by 87 patio homes and apartments. This was approved by the Plan Commission with 27 conditions.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Nay, along with all members.
While we can reliably be counted on to resist what "The Gary" believes constitutes responsible development, the planning staff made a good case that this particular development constituted building "in" relative to many other proposals, and that such should be encouraged. A close call, but S5 would have acceded to the recommendation of the Plan Commission while laying the groundwork for a council policy statement that would impose impact fees on developments outside the urban enterprise zone. D5 has drawn criticism for even voting on her brother's submission. We believe Benedetti should have recused herself, although a scenario can be constructed whereby even a recusal could have been a conflict of interest. Brandon Smith's suggestion that she absent herself from the room seems to be the best compromise on this one for the incumbent.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Wouldn't It Have Been Cool If...
...Pat McLaughlin and Diane Benedetti had attended a few council meetings over the past two years? Think they might have reconsidered giving their vote to Dan Coffey?
Footprints in the Sand
I was born on a beach. I still have sand in my Shakas.
So when I think of impressions, I recall the dawn of day on the Atlantic coast. The health-walkers, the shell-seekers, and yes, the transients, will have left their impressions on the sand.
I took a long walk on New Albany Beach Monday night and came away with a few impressions.
- Shinin and Snubbin
- Sleight of Hand
- Parade of Ignorance
- Caffeynated Four Years?
- Shallower and Shallower
- He-Earned-It, But-How, Precisely?
- Denison Making Mark
People of all stripes, knowing my interest, have asked me if the "new" council will be an improvement. I've hedged, but had been cautiously optimistic. Two "removals" and one "addition" would dictate that things must improve. The optimist in me said the other new council members would join, ultimately, if not immediately, with the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and the progressive element on the council. That, to my frequent surprise, includes the lone Republican, who can probably be relied on to support his own party members in electoral matters, but on civic matters usually chooses to engage his brain.
So when I think of impressions, I recall the dawn of day on the Atlantic coast. The health-walkers, the shell-seekers, and yes, the transients, will have left their impressions on the sand.
I took a long walk on New Albany Beach Monday night and came away with a few impressions.
- Shinin and Snubbin
- Sleight of Hand
- Parade of Ignorance
- Caffeynated Four Years?
- Shallower and Shallower
- He-Earned-It, But-How, Precisely?
- Denison Making Mark
People of all stripes, knowing my interest, have asked me if the "new" council will be an improvement. I've hedged, but had been cautiously optimistic. Two "removals" and one "addition" would dictate that things must improve. The optimist in me said the other new council members would join, ultimately, if not immediately, with the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and the progressive element on the council. That, to my frequent surprise, includes the lone Republican, who can probably be relied on to support his own party members in electoral matters, but on civic matters usually chooses to engage his brain.
Imagine my chagrin after attending Monday's first meeting of the New Albany City Council. Replacing the "Gang of Four" is a new, perhaps more perilous "Gahang of Five."
Dios mio!
For the time being, Shadow5 will look to the mayor, not the council, for leadership of a progressive stripe. Who'd a thunk it?
Shinin' and Snubbin'
It became obvious who was "in" and who was "out" at Monday's council meeting. Those sufficiently loyal to the new mayor were greeted with effusions of praise and adoration. Anyone less than fully sold out to the England Restoration risked frostbite.
England is fortunate to have a large professional staff, so while A can be aloof, B can be warm, and C can be conciliatory. And England himself was firing on all cylinders Monday night, missing not a beat in his optimistic and velvet-gloved peroration to the crowd (oops, I mean to the council).
England promised his State of the City address next month, but his agenda became more transparent Monday. He still continues to espouse progressive ideals.
As a semi-professional skeptic, Shadow5 still wonders whether Doug England is being genuinely responsive to the undercurrent of the city - or whether he is adroitly co-opting the most vocal and intelligent segments of the city. In some respects, either analysis leads to progress. If England can bring progressives on board with his program, the average acceleration toward a brighter day will increase.
The alternative is horrible. Let's assume for just a moment that England is not a natural progressive. Just assume it, for the sake of argument. Yet, he responds viscerally to progressive ideas. He sees the progressives as natural allies to be courted. By harnessing their creative energies, he can only improve the prospects for his four-year term. Like iron sharpens iron, perhaps.
But...what if the progressives seek and ask and demand, but give nothing in return? England is too shrewd to cater to an element that will, in the end, treat his power as a free spigot to be turned on and off on a whim.
We don't suggest a "corrupt bargain." But surely wisdom lies in recognizing and utilizing the skills, talents, ideas, and abilities of an energized electorate still silly enough to hope for something better. And surely wisdom dictates that if an administration champions "your" ideas, you really can't ask for much more.
England is fortunate to have a large professional staff, so while A can be aloof, B can be warm, and C can be conciliatory. And England himself was firing on all cylinders Monday night, missing not a beat in his optimistic and velvet-gloved peroration to the crowd (oops, I mean to the council).
England promised his State of the City address next month, but his agenda became more transparent Monday. He still continues to espouse progressive ideals.
As a semi-professional skeptic, Shadow5 still wonders whether Doug England is being genuinely responsive to the undercurrent of the city - or whether he is adroitly co-opting the most vocal and intelligent segments of the city. In some respects, either analysis leads to progress. If England can bring progressives on board with his program, the average acceleration toward a brighter day will increase.
The alternative is horrible. Let's assume for just a moment that England is not a natural progressive. Just assume it, for the sake of argument. Yet, he responds viscerally to progressive ideas. He sees the progressives as natural allies to be courted. By harnessing their creative energies, he can only improve the prospects for his four-year term. Like iron sharpens iron, perhaps.
But...what if the progressives seek and ask and demand, but give nothing in return? England is too shrewd to cater to an element that will, in the end, treat his power as a free spigot to be turned on and off on a whim.
We don't suggest a "corrupt bargain." But surely wisdom lies in recognizing and utilizing the skills, talents, ideas, and abilities of an energized electorate still silly enough to hope for something better. And surely wisdom dictates that if an administration champions "your" ideas, you really can't ask for much more.
Sleight of Hand
I wouldn't go so far as to call it disturbing, but the England administration slid easily into the saddle Monday night with ease when the council approved a "transfer of funds" to accommodate Doug England's management objectives.
Having turned out every change purse in the City-County Building (and a few outside it), England and his team created a new reality in New Albany.
Converting this "contractual" dollar, that legislative revision, another dollop of federal money there, the administration recreated city government in one swell foop.
We now have two deputy mayors. DM Carl Malysz heads up community development and executive functions. DM John Wilcox captains city operations. Matt Denison will be deputy director of operations. That's three men stepping into the shoes of the departed Anthony B. Toran, former city director of operations.
With Adam Dickey and Paul Wheatley long-departed to, respectively, federal and construction interest posts, that freed up a dollar or two. A nip into permissible CDBG funds created another new position, designated as a "concentrated codes enforcement officer."
But what was bemusing was the ease with which the controller and the taller of the two DM's translated John Rosenbarger's "new" post. Now permitted to use TIF money to pay salaries, the city will now fund the redevelopment public works coordinator with incremental tax funds outside the general fund.
But wait. The Malysz/Wilcox/Denison/CCEO-to-be-named quartet are the new positions. The newfound money wasn't found to pay John Rosenbarger. It was found in order to pay the two deputy mayors et al. Yet not a word of protest was heard. D5's Benedetti asked innocently who would fill this new post and whether it had a job description.
So John Rosenbarger, career city employee, is now the "new" hire. The England campaign team gets paid with John R's salary, while John R gets paid with "new" money.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. George and Aldous would have applauded.
Having turned out every change purse in the City-County Building (and a few outside it), England and his team created a new reality in New Albany.
Converting this "contractual" dollar, that legislative revision, another dollop of federal money there, the administration recreated city government in one swell foop.
We now have two deputy mayors. DM Carl Malysz heads up community development and executive functions. DM John Wilcox captains city operations. Matt Denison will be deputy director of operations. That's three men stepping into the shoes of the departed Anthony B. Toran, former city director of operations.
With Adam Dickey and Paul Wheatley long-departed to, respectively, federal and construction interest posts, that freed up a dollar or two. A nip into permissible CDBG funds created another new position, designated as a "concentrated codes enforcement officer."
But what was bemusing was the ease with which the controller and the taller of the two DM's translated John Rosenbarger's "new" post. Now permitted to use TIF money to pay salaries, the city will now fund the redevelopment public works coordinator with incremental tax funds outside the general fund.
But wait. The Malysz/Wilcox/Denison/CCEO-to-be-named quartet are the new positions. The newfound money wasn't found to pay John Rosenbarger. It was found in order to pay the two deputy mayors et al. Yet not a word of protest was heard. D5's Benedetti asked innocently who would fill this new post and whether it had a job description.
So John Rosenbarger, career city employee, is now the "new" hire. The England campaign team gets paid with John R's salary, while John R gets paid with "new" money.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. George and Aldous would have applauded.
A Parade of Ignorance
Bet you thought this was going to be a screed against a certain majority component of the New Albany City Council. Dintcha?
Monday night was, instead, a triumph for the reactionary contingent. Oh, it wasn't obvious to the casual observer. The folks out Charlestown Road didn't have a clue that the council that gave them a 9-0 rejection of a Gary McCartin development had just been taken over by what now must be called "The Gahang of Five." (Editor's note: We are not ignoring the 6 votes that put Mr. Gahan into office. But trust us, the gahang is a quintet.)
No, the parade of ignorance came to its conclusion with Monday night's organizational session. The parade started several years ago. It gathered steam as more and more New Albanians saw a reason for hope in a resurgent progressive movement that would not settle for government as usual.
My dad took great stock in differentiating ignorance and stupidity. To call someone ignorant was never, to his way of thinking, an insult. Rather, it was considered a compassionate, if not charitable way of explaining the inexplicable.
Well, the parade of progressives clearly didn't understand that politics is not an intramural sport. It turns out that politics in New Albany is, at worst, a semi-pro proposition, with high stakes and big rewards.
So what did the progressives do when it came to this past year's city elections? They voted. After all, isn't that all that's necessary?
The progressives, for the most part, eschewed the requirements of volunteering, canvassing, financing, and campaigning their asses off for candidates who would represent their interests. In their ignorance, they allowed yet another city election to be captured by the politicians who do the most to keep progress to a minimum.
The parade of ignorance didn't find itself on the losing side so much as it found itself on the outside of the new council. Sure, a minority of the council will take their phone calls. A few others will pretend to sympathize. But for the next four years, the council will be a dead end for progressives.
And if that's the situation four years from now, it won't be because of ignorance. It will be because of stupidity - knowing what to do but refusing to do it.
Monday night was, instead, a triumph for the reactionary contingent. Oh, it wasn't obvious to the casual observer. The folks out Charlestown Road didn't have a clue that the council that gave them a 9-0 rejection of a Gary McCartin development had just been taken over by what now must be called "The Gahang of Five." (Editor's note: We are not ignoring the 6 votes that put Mr. Gahan into office. But trust us, the gahang is a quintet.)
No, the parade of ignorance came to its conclusion with Monday night's organizational session. The parade started several years ago. It gathered steam as more and more New Albanians saw a reason for hope in a resurgent progressive movement that would not settle for government as usual.
My dad took great stock in differentiating ignorance and stupidity. To call someone ignorant was never, to his way of thinking, an insult. Rather, it was considered a compassionate, if not charitable way of explaining the inexplicable.
Well, the parade of progressives clearly didn't understand that politics is not an intramural sport. It turns out that politics in New Albany is, at worst, a semi-pro proposition, with high stakes and big rewards.
So what did the progressives do when it came to this past year's city elections? They voted. After all, isn't that all that's necessary?
The progressives, for the most part, eschewed the requirements of volunteering, canvassing, financing, and campaigning their asses off for candidates who would represent their interests. In their ignorance, they allowed yet another city election to be captured by the politicians who do the most to keep progress to a minimum.
The parade of ignorance didn't find itself on the losing side so much as it found itself on the outside of the new council. Sure, a minority of the council will take their phone calls. A few others will pretend to sympathize. But for the next four years, the council will be a dead end for progressives.
And if that's the situation four years from now, it won't be because of ignorance. It will be because of stupidity - knowing what to do but refusing to do it.
A Caffeynated Four Years?
I'd guess more like four months, but that's more than enough to do immeasurable damage.
Dan Coffey, who continues to set records for least electoral support among winning candidates, also continues to misrepresent the interests of the people of the First District. But his ability to work his will was on full display Monday night.
Coffey outworked and outmaneuvered his opponents on the council and now we all get to live with the consequences.
Jack Messer (At Large), a reliable advocate for sound, responsive, accountable, and reasonable legislation, had presumably gained the confidence of enough of his colleagues to take the gavel at Monday's organizational meeting of the council. Jeff Gahan (D-6) had presumably decided a year ago that he could serve better as an active participant in debate. Messer had decided he could serve better by bringing discipline to the conduct of council.
Gahan's support proved to be critical to Messer's ambitions and it simply wasn't there. We'll never know why Gahan decided to again seek the presidency, but we have lots of guesses.
It was a given that council members Coffey and Price would never support Jack Messer. Yet, direct opposition as candidates would have been folly. Accordingly, the enfeebled Gang of Two (let's face it, Dan) began to court Gahan as their stalking horse. We can easily imagine the bonhomie and flattery (Save us, Obi-Wan Kenobe) that persuaded Gahan to join the "Stop Messer" movement.
Coffey, who comes from the "whispering campaign" wing of the Democratic Party - that's the one that withers and dies in the light of the sun - still needed more votes. What a Godsend, then, was the election of Coffey confidant Gary McCartin's sister in District Five.
Who then among the remaining new council members would be easiest to persuade? Not Bob Caesar. Not John Gonder.
How about Pat McLaughlin, the candidate who twice endeavored and once succeeded in driving Larry Kochert from public office. But how could anyone imagine that someone who presented himself as the anti-Kochert might give his vote to continue a Kochertian tradition?
Dan Coffey could imagine it. And it makes him not only kingmaker, but the temporary power behind the throne. A soft, yet powerful appointment for the spent Coffey ally Bill Schmidt was just the first of the perks dispensed by the new President. We hope that someone will compile a list of Monday night's council appointments. An educated reading of those lists will reinforce our conclusion that 2008 is the Year of Coffey.
Based on the way McLaughlin (D-4) campaigned, we shouldn't have been surprised. He, along with Benedetti, have clearly deposited their futures (and their constituents') in the First Bank of Coffey. The interest may be lean, but those "bank" fees are going to eat you up.
Dan Coffey, who continues to set records for least electoral support among winning candidates, also continues to misrepresent the interests of the people of the First District. But his ability to work his will was on full display Monday night.
Coffey outworked and outmaneuvered his opponents on the council and now we all get to live with the consequences.
Jack Messer (At Large), a reliable advocate for sound, responsive, accountable, and reasonable legislation, had presumably gained the confidence of enough of his colleagues to take the gavel at Monday's organizational meeting of the council. Jeff Gahan (D-6) had presumably decided a year ago that he could serve better as an active participant in debate. Messer had decided he could serve better by bringing discipline to the conduct of council.
Gahan's support proved to be critical to Messer's ambitions and it simply wasn't there. We'll never know why Gahan decided to again seek the presidency, but we have lots of guesses.
It was a given that council members Coffey and Price would never support Jack Messer. Yet, direct opposition as candidates would have been folly. Accordingly, the enfeebled Gang of Two (let's face it, Dan) began to court Gahan as their stalking horse. We can easily imagine the bonhomie and flattery (Save us, Obi-Wan Kenobe) that persuaded Gahan to join the "Stop Messer" movement.
Coffey, who comes from the "whispering campaign" wing of the Democratic Party - that's the one that withers and dies in the light of the sun - still needed more votes. What a Godsend, then, was the election of Coffey confidant Gary McCartin's sister in District Five.
Who then among the remaining new council members would be easiest to persuade? Not Bob Caesar. Not John Gonder.
How about Pat McLaughlin, the candidate who twice endeavored and once succeeded in driving Larry Kochert from public office. But how could anyone imagine that someone who presented himself as the anti-Kochert might give his vote to continue a Kochertian tradition?
Dan Coffey could imagine it. And it makes him not only kingmaker, but the temporary power behind the throne. A soft, yet powerful appointment for the spent Coffey ally Bill Schmidt was just the first of the perks dispensed by the new President. We hope that someone will compile a list of Monday night's council appointments. An educated reading of those lists will reinforce our conclusion that 2008 is the Year of Coffey.
Based on the way McLaughlin (D-4) campaigned, we shouldn't have been surprised. He, along with Benedetti, have clearly deposited their futures (and their constituents') in the First Bank of Coffey. The interest may be lean, but those "bank" fees are going to eat you up.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Shallower and Shallower
District 3 council member Steve Price, beginning his second term as the Democratic representative of the most diverse district in the city, is the antithesis of "depth."
We note NA Confidential's dialogue regarding Mr. Price's comments in The Tribune, wherein he referred to the council as "they."
Our "Price-less Moment" for the January 7 meeting came when Mr. Price took the stage to declare his undying support for whatever is the opposite of progress.
He stated (and I'll paraphrase) that his default position on all zoning and planning matters destined to come before the council would be to oppose any plan that draws opposition from the closest neighbors. One assumes that includes futile stances that will subject the city to great expense when the council rebuffs strictly legal proposals.
One observer noted that Mr. Price was a bold defender of the status quo for Monday night's Sixth District NIMBYs, and wondered why he wasn't equally bold in defending his own district against decay and infestation by a slumlord/crackhouse mentality.
We note NA Confidential's dialogue regarding Mr. Price's comments in The Tribune, wherein he referred to the council as "they."
Our "Price-less Moment" for the January 7 meeting came when Mr. Price took the stage to declare his undying support for whatever is the opposite of progress.
He stated (and I'll paraphrase) that his default position on all zoning and planning matters destined to come before the council would be to oppose any plan that draws opposition from the closest neighbors. One assumes that includes futile stances that will subject the city to great expense when the council rebuffs strictly legal proposals.
One observer noted that Mr. Price was a bold defender of the status quo for Monday night's Sixth District NIMBYs, and wondered why he wasn't equally bold in defending his own district against decay and infestation by a slumlord/crackhouse mentality.
He Earned It, But How, Precisely?
Shadow5 admits to great disappointment at the return of Jeff Gahan as President of the 2008 City Council. After two years wielding the gavel, Gahan took a year off from presiding over the council's deliberations. We inferred that as he had grown into the job during his first term he had grown increasingly frustrated at being a mediator instead of an active participant in debate.
Despite fits and stumbles as the presiding officer, and a penchant for being unable to hide his anger, Gahan was demonstrably more capable in the chair than his unlamented successor.
We have too much respect for Mr. Gahan to believe he is a fool. Yet, he has for months begun to align himself with the bitter ignorance caucus on the council, previously known as the Gang of Four. By his stated expressions, it was clear that he felt that he was being disrespected by the administration, that he was being played. His reaction to same was to become mercurial and often unreasonable.
Gahan's most glaring deficiency was his blind resistance to addressing the Constitutional inequities of the city's legislative districts. Gahan, more than any single council member, has resisted all efforts to avoid costly litigation. Gahan, as a potential "peacemaker," first chose to dig in his and the council's heels and pretend there was no problem. Later, as a "mere" council member, Gahan, in our estimation, sold out in exchange for...
A mess of porridge is our guess.
The payback? Another year in the center chair.
Shadow5 has a rule when it comes to politicians. I don't have to like you, I don't have to agree with you. But don't lie to me. Don't "play" me. Jeff Gahan ought to know how that feels. A lot of people say Gahan is a "nice" guy, a "smart" guy, an "reasonable" guy.
I no longer trust him as a man of his word, and that's lamentable. The temptation to psychoanalyze the man is high, but it's not necessary. On objective evidence, he's sold out and begun a dangerous slide to the dark side.
Despite fits and stumbles as the presiding officer, and a penchant for being unable to hide his anger, Gahan was demonstrably more capable in the chair than his unlamented successor.
We have too much respect for Mr. Gahan to believe he is a fool. Yet, he has for months begun to align himself with the bitter ignorance caucus on the council, previously known as the Gang of Four. By his stated expressions, it was clear that he felt that he was being disrespected by the administration, that he was being played. His reaction to same was to become mercurial and often unreasonable.
Gahan's most glaring deficiency was his blind resistance to addressing the Constitutional inequities of the city's legislative districts. Gahan, more than any single council member, has resisted all efforts to avoid costly litigation. Gahan, as a potential "peacemaker," first chose to dig in his and the council's heels and pretend there was no problem. Later, as a "mere" council member, Gahan, in our estimation, sold out in exchange for...
A mess of porridge is our guess.
The payback? Another year in the center chair.
Shadow5 has a rule when it comes to politicians. I don't have to like you, I don't have to agree with you. But don't lie to me. Don't "play" me. Jeff Gahan ought to know how that feels. A lot of people say Gahan is a "nice" guy, a "smart" guy, an "reasonable" guy.
I no longer trust him as a man of his word, and that's lamentable. The temptation to psychoanalyze the man is high, but it's not necessary. On objective evidence, he's sold out and begun a dangerous slide to the dark side.
Denison Making a Mark
If you're not involved in politics of the nitty-gritty partisan variety, you've probably not met (nor heard of) Matt Denison.
Get to know him now. Denison has assumed the office of Deputy Director of Operations. He'll bear special responsibility for New Albany's IT functions and, it is said, will likely chair the weekly meetings of the Board of Public Works & Safety. The BPWS is the place where residents can seek city action. It is a powerful operation, with oversight of the streets department, the fire department, and the police department.
We've had numerous occasions to interact with the young man over the past four years, and with a few limited exceptions involving differences in who we support(ed) in the three election seasons that passed, we've found Matt to be sincere in his efforts to remember the "service" part of public service.
Denison has served as the No. 2 in the building commissioner's office under each of its occupants during the Garner administration. As the "inside" guy, he shepherded all the applications for local building permits and tried to make the process relatively painless.
We'll make three observations about Denison: His appointment is a sign of Mayor England's responsiveness to the need for a seamless communications/technology program; he is a hard-working, loyal, and political fellow; and he has shown sterling resolution in his personal life.
First, the IT Portfolio
Perhaps by default, Denison has become the city's information technology (read: computers deep read: IT) guy. Most cities our size would have one or more staffers completely dedicated to this function. New Albany has never made a serious commitment to a modern communication and administration regime that incorporates the advances of technology, so "call Matt" became the substitute.
When reactionists talk about waste in government, they rarely protest the sweetheart technology deals that municipalities routinely engage in. In the old days, it was pretty easy to drop 100 Gs for rudimentary computers. Nowadays, it's not the hardware, or even the software, but the Web design, operation, and hosting that offers opportunity to repay favors.
To whatever extent New Albany invests its resources in developing a vigorous in-house technology capability, it will be reducing government waste. That investment begins with a bestowal of confidence in the staff, followed by a vision to make the best use of what we'll call "online government."
A fossil like myself will undoubtedly become less and less interested in seeking out every new development (Facebook and MySpace, IM, the iPhone) - they simply seem frivolous. But our children and their children (those who are interested) will probably have subscriptions to government comm-blasts embedded in their outer- (or under-) wear.
The city simply can't wait until that day to adapt to modern communications. Denison's elevation is a sign that the mayor, who had graduated from college before the first personal computer was invented, knows that a lean government must govern smart.
Second: The Politician
Denison is paying his dues. He was, for the most part, loyal to the past administration. He pulled his weight (more about that later) in campaign after campaign, most notably in last year's county elections for New Albany Township Trustee and for Sheriff. Denison was highly visible in both campaigns and has steadily built up a lot of credibility within the Democratic Party, despite his relative youth.
This appointment is a logical next step for Denison. Having chosen public service, he has learned how to advance his career. We have no idea if Denison aspires to elective office, but he's doing all the right things to prosper as a government employee.
Third: The Guy With Discipline
It has been something of a trend among a few of the men who gravitate to the third floor to address oppressive weight problems. We can't help but admire Denison, who shed what appears to be about 70 pounds over the past two or three years. Unlike many of us who keep adding five-pound bags of sugar to our daily loads, Denison recognized a "growing" problem and made it go away. We're truly talking "Biggest Loser" territory here.
Congratulations to Matt Denison on climbing another rung on the ladder. We hope you'll remember that who writes the checks is different from who pays the bills.
Get to know him now. Denison has assumed the office of Deputy Director of Operations. He'll bear special responsibility for New Albany's IT functions and, it is said, will likely chair the weekly meetings of the Board of Public Works & Safety. The BPWS is the place where residents can seek city action. It is a powerful operation, with oversight of the streets department, the fire department, and the police department.
We've had numerous occasions to interact with the young man over the past four years, and with a few limited exceptions involving differences in who we support(ed) in the three election seasons that passed, we've found Matt to be sincere in his efforts to remember the "service" part of public service.
Denison has served as the No. 2 in the building commissioner's office under each of its occupants during the Garner administration. As the "inside" guy, he shepherded all the applications for local building permits and tried to make the process relatively painless.
We'll make three observations about Denison: His appointment is a sign of Mayor England's responsiveness to the need for a seamless communications/technology program; he is a hard-working, loyal, and political fellow; and he has shown sterling resolution in his personal life.
First, the IT Portfolio
Perhaps by default, Denison has become the city's information technology (read: computers deep read: IT) guy. Most cities our size would have one or more staffers completely dedicated to this function. New Albany has never made a serious commitment to a modern communication and administration regime that incorporates the advances of technology, so "call Matt" became the substitute.
When reactionists talk about waste in government, they rarely protest the sweetheart technology deals that municipalities routinely engage in. In the old days, it was pretty easy to drop 100 Gs for rudimentary computers. Nowadays, it's not the hardware, or even the software, but the Web design, operation, and hosting that offers opportunity to repay favors.
To whatever extent New Albany invests its resources in developing a vigorous in-house technology capability, it will be reducing government waste. That investment begins with a bestowal of confidence in the staff, followed by a vision to make the best use of what we'll call "online government."
A fossil like myself will undoubtedly become less and less interested in seeking out every new development (Facebook and MySpace, IM, the iPhone) - they simply seem frivolous. But our children and their children (those who are interested) will probably have subscriptions to government comm-blasts embedded in their outer- (or under-) wear.
The city simply can't wait until that day to adapt to modern communications. Denison's elevation is a sign that the mayor, who had graduated from college before the first personal computer was invented, knows that a lean government must govern smart.
Second: The Politician
Denison is paying his dues. He was, for the most part, loyal to the past administration. He pulled his weight (more about that later) in campaign after campaign, most notably in last year's county elections for New Albany Township Trustee and for Sheriff. Denison was highly visible in both campaigns and has steadily built up a lot of credibility within the Democratic Party, despite his relative youth.
This appointment is a logical next step for Denison. Having chosen public service, he has learned how to advance his career. We have no idea if Denison aspires to elective office, but he's doing all the right things to prosper as a government employee.
Third: The Guy With Discipline
It has been something of a trend among a few of the men who gravitate to the third floor to address oppressive weight problems. We can't help but admire Denison, who shed what appears to be about 70 pounds over the past two or three years. Unlike many of us who keep adding five-pound bags of sugar to our daily loads, Denison recognized a "growing" problem and made it go away. We're truly talking "Biggest Loser" territory here.
Congratulations to Matt Denison on climbing another rung on the ladder. We hope you'll remember that who writes the checks is different from who pays the bills.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
White Hats
Not every issue that confronts the New Albany City Council is predictable. Mr. Coffey's traditional charm offensive, his "presenting" behavior in front of the incoming council members, is designed to disarm them, to present a disinformative view of his basic approach to his civic duties.
Some have even suggested more-Machiavellian motives to the District 1 representative. D3 rep Steve Price was embarrassed to admit in a fall forum that his voting record tracked religiously to Mr. Coffey's, with Mr. Price voting in lockstep with Mr. Coffey more than 98% of the time. At least one correspondent suggested that Mr. Coffey's recent support of a 3% raise for the police, and his advocacy for Haven House to receive $50,000, were a ruse to allow Mr. Price to vote against the measures and thus assert his independence as he moves into his second term.
This observer does not expect to see a "new" Dan Coffey. Once this new council defeats his nomination to chair the proceedings, and further rebuffs his "claim" as the losing candidate to be the vice, we'll see the predictable Coffeyesque grandstanding. The avowed allegiance to now-Mayor England will evaporate. The collegiality shown during the seduction phase of the Coffey quadrennial courtship ritual will go "poof."
But we spend too much time on Mr. Coffey. Except for the fact that he consumes an inordinate proportion of each meeting with his "expert" opinions on matters ranging from Pakistani internal security to the erosional qualities of steep slopes, from the nature of crime in metropolitan Chicago to the intransigent poverty of a portion of the city he does everything in his power to keep in poverty, Mr. Coffey has become irrelevant.
It is only if he is able to co-opt Mrs. Benedetti (D5), Mr. McLaughlin (D4), or others, that Mr. Coffey has any relevance.
Mrs. Benedetti remains an enigma. Most reporters relate that she is ardently community-minded, the prototypical soccer mom, a volunteer in the best tradition, and far more than a stalking horse for her brother the developer of cookie-cutter greenfield strips.
Mr. McLaughlin waged a timid campaign and yet still demolished the severely diminished Kochert "machine." We ask whether Mr. McLaughlin will be the "Donnie Blevins" of this new council. Will Mr. McLaughlin be the quintessential swing vote throughout the next four years? Based on the cautious way he campaigned in 2007, we fear that Pat will be the pivot around which the council totters. In some ways, that's not a bad position to be in if you have initiatives you want to press. But based on his campaign, Mr. Mac "don't have no initiatives."
This blogger, for one, does not desire to see any council member occupying the "on the other hand" seat. JC said it best: If you are lukewarm, I will spew you out.
On limited information, Shadow5 feels a sense of guarded optimism about D2's Bob Caesar. On first impression, Caesar is a sincere and somewhat involuntary politician. On second glance, he is a skilled operator with a determined agenda. Early indications are that Mr. Caesar has patched over any dissonance between his positions and those of the England triumvirate. Judgment is reserved as to whether that is a positive development.
Shadow5 expresses full confidence in the judgment of new at-large council member John Gonder. We are equally ebullient at Mr. Messer's return to council. The addition of Mr. Caesar and Mr. McLaughlin is something to cheer, especially in light of who they replaced. Mr. Zurschmiede, so far, has shown a decided lack of partisanship (wisely, given his dramatic party minority position) and a promising sense of progressivism.
Mr. Gahan displays the requisite skills and accessibility. Some have touted him as a future mayoral candidate. We continue to view Gahan as a "white hat," although we continue to be puzzled by his adamant insistence on supporting a clearly unlawful redistricting ordinance.
The best news for New Albanians is that the "Gang of Four" is deceased. Although it could be resurrected, that is unlikely. Time marches on, and with any luck, the remaining duo of that formerly troublesome quartet will be serving out their final terms. The optimist in me hopes for new maturity in the youngest of that duo, but fears the worst. And for the elder, it's going to take much more than a two-month charm offensive to raise even the slightest hopes of redemption and renewal.
One recalls that Mr. Coffey marched in lockstep with drum major Kochert in fighting the requests of the police and fire departments for most of the last four years. One recalls that Mr. Coffey was one of the most vocal in opposing support for Haven House, this community's sole homeless shelter program.
Then we watched as Mr. Coffey championed the 3% raise for the police and a $50,000 grant to Haven House. Forgive us for being suspicious. Absent something more than conjecture, it's hard to imagine a Damascene conversion. Based on the last month's perorations and advocacies*, we'd almost believe that Dan Coffey is a Democrat!
*except for his insistence on maintaining unequal legislative districts, no matter the cost, no matter the inequity and no matter the violations of well-established Constitutional norms.
At best, we can look for a rational majority consisting of Gonder, Messer, McLaughlin, Caesar, and Zurschmeide. We can hope that Benedetti and Gahan will join that majority from time to time. Price (D3) and Coffey (D1) can be counted to vote against the city's best interests, whether out of ignorance or out of some persecuted sense that "somebody" is getting something they aren't. That is a recipe that will ensure their defeat in the next election.
Here's hoping they like the power they wield. Here's hoping the remaining "Gang of Two" want to remain in office and will vote to enhance and revivify their moribund districts with new residents, new businesses, and new opportunity.
We can hope, can't we? And here's hoping that the phrase "Gang of Two" becomes a common, but irrelevant blog label. We'd love to retire it. And we shudder to think that the "two" becomes three or four.
Some have even suggested more-Machiavellian motives to the District 1 representative. D3 rep Steve Price was embarrassed to admit in a fall forum that his voting record tracked religiously to Mr. Coffey's, with Mr. Price voting in lockstep with Mr. Coffey more than 98% of the time. At least one correspondent suggested that Mr. Coffey's recent support of a 3% raise for the police, and his advocacy for Haven House to receive $50,000, were a ruse to allow Mr. Price to vote against the measures and thus assert his independence as he moves into his second term.
This observer does not expect to see a "new" Dan Coffey. Once this new council defeats his nomination to chair the proceedings, and further rebuffs his "claim" as the losing candidate to be the vice, we'll see the predictable Coffeyesque grandstanding. The avowed allegiance to now-Mayor England will evaporate. The collegiality shown during the seduction phase of the Coffey quadrennial courtship ritual will go "poof."
But we spend too much time on Mr. Coffey. Except for the fact that he consumes an inordinate proportion of each meeting with his "expert" opinions on matters ranging from Pakistani internal security to the erosional qualities of steep slopes, from the nature of crime in metropolitan Chicago to the intransigent poverty of a portion of the city he does everything in his power to keep in poverty, Mr. Coffey has become irrelevant.
It is only if he is able to co-opt Mrs. Benedetti (D5), Mr. McLaughlin (D4), or others, that Mr. Coffey has any relevance.
Mrs. Benedetti remains an enigma. Most reporters relate that she is ardently community-minded, the prototypical soccer mom, a volunteer in the best tradition, and far more than a stalking horse for her brother the developer of cookie-cutter greenfield strips.
Mr. McLaughlin waged a timid campaign and yet still demolished the severely diminished Kochert "machine." We ask whether Mr. McLaughlin will be the "Donnie Blevins" of this new council. Will Mr. McLaughlin be the quintessential swing vote throughout the next four years? Based on the cautious way he campaigned in 2007, we fear that Pat will be the pivot around which the council totters. In some ways, that's not a bad position to be in if you have initiatives you want to press. But based on his campaign, Mr. Mac "don't have no initiatives."
This blogger, for one, does not desire to see any council member occupying the "on the other hand" seat. JC said it best: If you are lukewarm, I will spew you out.
On limited information, Shadow5 feels a sense of guarded optimism about D2's Bob Caesar. On first impression, Caesar is a sincere and somewhat involuntary politician. On second glance, he is a skilled operator with a determined agenda. Early indications are that Mr. Caesar has patched over any dissonance between his positions and those of the England triumvirate. Judgment is reserved as to whether that is a positive development.
Shadow5 expresses full confidence in the judgment of new at-large council member John Gonder. We are equally ebullient at Mr. Messer's return to council. The addition of Mr. Caesar and Mr. McLaughlin is something to cheer, especially in light of who they replaced. Mr. Zurschmiede, so far, has shown a decided lack of partisanship (wisely, given his dramatic party minority position) and a promising sense of progressivism.
Mr. Gahan displays the requisite skills and accessibility. Some have touted him as a future mayoral candidate. We continue to view Gahan as a "white hat," although we continue to be puzzled by his adamant insistence on supporting a clearly unlawful redistricting ordinance.
The best news for New Albanians is that the "Gang of Four" is deceased. Although it could be resurrected, that is unlikely. Time marches on, and with any luck, the remaining duo of that formerly troublesome quartet will be serving out their final terms. The optimist in me hopes for new maturity in the youngest of that duo, but fears the worst. And for the elder, it's going to take much more than a two-month charm offensive to raise even the slightest hopes of redemption and renewal.
One recalls that Mr. Coffey marched in lockstep with drum major Kochert in fighting the requests of the police and fire departments for most of the last four years. One recalls that Mr. Coffey was one of the most vocal in opposing support for Haven House, this community's sole homeless shelter program.
Then we watched as Mr. Coffey championed the 3% raise for the police and a $50,000 grant to Haven House. Forgive us for being suspicious. Absent something more than conjecture, it's hard to imagine a Damascene conversion. Based on the last month's perorations and advocacies*, we'd almost believe that Dan Coffey is a Democrat!
*except for his insistence on maintaining unequal legislative districts, no matter the cost, no matter the inequity and no matter the violations of well-established Constitutional norms.
At best, we can look for a rational majority consisting of Gonder, Messer, McLaughlin, Caesar, and Zurschmeide. We can hope that Benedetti and Gahan will join that majority from time to time. Price (D3) and Coffey (D1) can be counted to vote against the city's best interests, whether out of ignorance or out of some persecuted sense that "somebody" is getting something they aren't. That is a recipe that will ensure their defeat in the next election.
Here's hoping they like the power they wield. Here's hoping the remaining "Gang of Two" want to remain in office and will vote to enhance and revivify their moribund districts with new residents, new businesses, and new opportunity.
We can hope, can't we? And here's hoping that the phrase "Gang of Two" becomes a common, but irrelevant blog label. We'd love to retire it. And we shudder to think that the "two" becomes three or four.
The First Monday
Traditionally, the first Monday and the third Thursday are the designated days for the Common Council for the second class City of New Albany to meet. You should mark those days on your calendar. From time to time, usually around the holidays, those dates shift, but you owe it yourself and your children and your children's children to attend at least some of those gatherings.
Next Monday, January 7, will be the first meeting of a newly elected council. How this council (8 Democrats and 1 Republican) will align, remains to be seen. What we can be sure of is that three impediments to progress have left the council. Will the three who replaced them be more progressive? Will that translate into legislation and oversight that moves us forward?
This first meeting is usually pro forma, with a concentration on organizational matters. The council will elect a president (and a vice president to preside in the absence of the former) and begin to establish its standing committees.
But this incoming council has been far from passive. Its secret meetings and other informal discussions promise a dynamic agenda from the opening tip-off. Oddsmakers say that second-term at-large council member Jack Messer will give up his flagship role as the leader of a progressive movement to assume the chair. The headcounts say he has the votes to take the gavel from the barely lamented Larry Kochert. Kochert, by the way, is already lobbying for a lucrative sinecure on the city's municipal utility board. While we don't begrudge "King Larry" a paycheck, we sincerely doubt that he will behave himself in keeping with the traditions of democracy and open government. Why should he start now?
The Messer ascendancy seems assured. Once again, though, incoming council members will be tempted by "Councilman Cappucino's" fall charm offensive to give the District 1 rep the booby prize and award him with the vice presidency. I urge the majority who elects Messer to enforce its will by electing either of Messrs. Gahan, Gonder, or Caesar to fill the seat in the president's absence.
On a related note, uncertain intelligence reports that more than $8,000 has already been raised for Candidate X to use in the 2011 race for the District 1 seat. Considering we're less than two hours into Mr. Coffey's third term, that's pretty impressive. That sum equals every dollar invested in the nine races contested last November. Someone is pretty serious about removing DJC from his representative role.
The incoming council will be handed at least one serious decision to address. In the fading moments of the last council's tenure, a motion was successfully tendered to solicit applicants for the role of counsel to the city council. Incumbent Jerry Ulrich has served as an able parliamentarian to the chair and as a perfectly adequate advocate for litigatory causes championed by a council majority. Perhaps that allegiance to the former majority is what has prompted this vote of "less than confidence." I've maintained that Mr. Ulrich has represented his communal client (the majority) in his advocacy and in his public pronouncements. That's something for this new council to consider as they review the applicants. Do they want an attorney who tries to make policy, or an attorney who will vigorously defend and prosecute their will?
If the new council is concerned that Mr. Ulrich "skewed" to the majority too often in the past, and perhaps to the detriment of the city and the council, perhaps they should interview him to determine the causes. For example, in the late council's indefensible refusal to draw lawful legislative districts, Mr. Ulrich merely claimed to be willing and able to present a defense. Given that a clear majority of the late council demanded that even its patently unlawful redistricting ordinance be presented to the Federal District Court with a straight face, wasn't Mr. Ulrich doing everything within the bounds of his charge?
Some have suggested to this observer that Mr. Ulrich did not serve his clients well. I've suggested that he may, in fact, have been representing "their" views with as much vigor as a sentient being can do without drawing obvious horse laughs. Whether in its lawsuit against the city-owned utility, against the tyro stormwater board, or against the clear reading of the U.S. and Indiana constitutions and statutes regarding equal representation, Ulrich propounded positions demanded by his clients (the council majority). Is that a reason to replace him? Maybe so, maybe not.
On the intriguing subject of the citizen lawsuit to enforce the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, it should be noted that only three of the remaining council members voted to resist the arguments of legal history: Messrs. Coffey (D1), Price (D3), and Gahan (D6). The extant ordinance, certain to be rebuffed and declared void sometime in February, should be repealed by the incoming council. And it should be repealed on Jan. 7. Every member knows, or should know, that the Federal court has signaled that this ordinance will be met with extreme displeasure, that its variance from equality exceeds the permissible.
We look forward to an immediate vote by this council to agree to a consent decree whereby the council will undertake to complete an aggressively public redrawing of districts before the end of 2008. Such a vote would avert a costly and losing legal battle next month. Some member should propose it for the agenda by Thursday afternoon. And if no one does, it should be presented in executive session following the public meeting as new and emergency business. By Monday, the city will be within less than 30 days from a reckoning that could present the city with needless expense and great humiliation if it tries to defend the indefensible.
How about you, Mrs. Benedetti? You could make a great statement for democratic values by proposing that as your first measure as the representative for District 5.
For new readers: The City Council meets on the third floor of the City-County building. You can't miss the assembly room as it is directly opposite the elevators. For the past four years, it has been the best entertainment (if you could keep your lunch down or your eyes from popping out of your heads) in town. One hopes the next four years will see a more sober and rational series of meetings.
Next Monday, January 7, will be the first meeting of a newly elected council. How this council (8 Democrats and 1 Republican) will align, remains to be seen. What we can be sure of is that three impediments to progress have left the council. Will the three who replaced them be more progressive? Will that translate into legislation and oversight that moves us forward?
This first meeting is usually pro forma, with a concentration on organizational matters. The council will elect a president (and a vice president to preside in the absence of the former) and begin to establish its standing committees.
But this incoming council has been far from passive. Its secret meetings and other informal discussions promise a dynamic agenda from the opening tip-off. Oddsmakers say that second-term at-large council member Jack Messer will give up his flagship role as the leader of a progressive movement to assume the chair. The headcounts say he has the votes to take the gavel from the barely lamented Larry Kochert. Kochert, by the way, is already lobbying for a lucrative sinecure on the city's municipal utility board. While we don't begrudge "King Larry" a paycheck, we sincerely doubt that he will behave himself in keeping with the traditions of democracy and open government. Why should he start now?
The Messer ascendancy seems assured. Once again, though, incoming council members will be tempted by "Councilman Cappucino's" fall charm offensive to give the District 1 rep the booby prize and award him with the vice presidency. I urge the majority who elects Messer to enforce its will by electing either of Messrs. Gahan, Gonder, or Caesar to fill the seat in the president's absence.
On a related note, uncertain intelligence reports that more than $8,000 has already been raised for Candidate X to use in the 2011 race for the District 1 seat. Considering we're less than two hours into Mr. Coffey's third term, that's pretty impressive. That sum equals every dollar invested in the nine races contested last November. Someone is pretty serious about removing DJC from his representative role.
The incoming council will be handed at least one serious decision to address. In the fading moments of the last council's tenure, a motion was successfully tendered to solicit applicants for the role of counsel to the city council. Incumbent Jerry Ulrich has served as an able parliamentarian to the chair and as a perfectly adequate advocate for litigatory causes championed by a council majority. Perhaps that allegiance to the former majority is what has prompted this vote of "less than confidence." I've maintained that Mr. Ulrich has represented his communal client (the majority) in his advocacy and in his public pronouncements. That's something for this new council to consider as they review the applicants. Do they want an attorney who tries to make policy, or an attorney who will vigorously defend and prosecute their will?
If the new council is concerned that Mr. Ulrich "skewed" to the majority too often in the past, and perhaps to the detriment of the city and the council, perhaps they should interview him to determine the causes. For example, in the late council's indefensible refusal to draw lawful legislative districts, Mr. Ulrich merely claimed to be willing and able to present a defense. Given that a clear majority of the late council demanded that even its patently unlawful redistricting ordinance be presented to the Federal District Court with a straight face, wasn't Mr. Ulrich doing everything within the bounds of his charge?
Some have suggested to this observer that Mr. Ulrich did not serve his clients well. I've suggested that he may, in fact, have been representing "their" views with as much vigor as a sentient being can do without drawing obvious horse laughs. Whether in its lawsuit against the city-owned utility, against the tyro stormwater board, or against the clear reading of the U.S. and Indiana constitutions and statutes regarding equal representation, Ulrich propounded positions demanded by his clients (the council majority). Is that a reason to replace him? Maybe so, maybe not.
On the intriguing subject of the citizen lawsuit to enforce the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, it should be noted that only three of the remaining council members voted to resist the arguments of legal history: Messrs. Coffey (D1), Price (D3), and Gahan (D6). The extant ordinance, certain to be rebuffed and declared void sometime in February, should be repealed by the incoming council. And it should be repealed on Jan. 7. Every member knows, or should know, that the Federal court has signaled that this ordinance will be met with extreme displeasure, that its variance from equality exceeds the permissible.
We look forward to an immediate vote by this council to agree to a consent decree whereby the council will undertake to complete an aggressively public redrawing of districts before the end of 2008. Such a vote would avert a costly and losing legal battle next month. Some member should propose it for the agenda by Thursday afternoon. And if no one does, it should be presented in executive session following the public meeting as new and emergency business. By Monday, the city will be within less than 30 days from a reckoning that could present the city with needless expense and great humiliation if it tries to defend the indefensible.
How about you, Mrs. Benedetti? You could make a great statement for democratic values by proposing that as your first measure as the representative for District 5.
For new readers: The City Council meets on the third floor of the City-County building. You can't miss the assembly room as it is directly opposite the elevators. For the past four years, it has been the best entertainment (if you could keep your lunch down or your eyes from popping out of your heads) in town. One hopes the next four years will see a more sober and rational series of meetings.
MTW: Mickey Thompson Watch, Day One, Hour One
Granted, today is a holiday, a non-working day for city employees. But it is the same set of city employees who were on the payroll yesterday, a day on which they all were presumably required to work.
So please explain to me why a felled "city" tree has continued to rest, unmolested, on the sidewalk of Spring Street east of Vincennes since before Christmas? That's Mickey Thompson's job, starting today, and if it's still there when I pass on Wednesday morning, I'll want to know why Mayor England finds that satisfactory.
This New Year's morning saw yet another deluge and yet another spate of street flooding caused solely by the inattention and neglect of the streets department and the stormwater and drainage departments. Mr. Thompson, if it is your contention that the streets department is not responsible for clogged stormwater drains, please say so. We'll ask Mr. England if that's his view, too.
We're fortunate that the flooding was limited. Next time, though, it will be Mr. Thompson's fault.
So please explain to me why a felled "city" tree has continued to rest, unmolested, on the sidewalk of Spring Street east of Vincennes since before Christmas? That's Mickey Thompson's job, starting today, and if it's still there when I pass on Wednesday morning, I'll want to know why Mayor England finds that satisfactory.
This New Year's morning saw yet another deluge and yet another spate of street flooding caused solely by the inattention and neglect of the streets department and the stormwater and drainage departments. Mr. Thompson, if it is your contention that the streets department is not responsible for clogged stormwater drains, please say so. We'll ask Mr. England if that's his view, too.
We're fortunate that the flooding was limited. Next time, though, it will be Mr. Thompson's fault.
"Now batting, in the leadoff spot..."
It's 2008 now from Chicago almost to Denver. The New Albany City Council has been in office for about an hour, and so far, they've done nothing!
There is a contingent within the narrow confines of the six (unequal) districts of New Albany that consider that a plus. Shadow5 is at work. Why isn't the new mayor and council?
Seriously, there is plenty that can be done in just the next 31 days to move New Albany forward, to build a legacy for the "seventh generation," and to make our city a magnet for innovators, creators, and inclusive cohabitants, whether newcomers or members of Hoosier Heritage families.
Although I wasn't born here (an impediment in the minds of some), I had the good taste to set my hat for New Albany's best and brightest, coincidentally descended from New Albanians that preceded even the Scribner brothers.
Couldn't WE, the new and the old, agree that our children deserve a city to be proud of?
Project One for the new mayor and council: Clean up our streets, put an end to street flooding, and create through enforcement a regime where lawfulness replaces the current lawlessness on our streets.
Has there ever been a city where traffic laws were less obeyed? Has there ever been a city where the system says "anything goes" when it comes to stop signs, traffic signals, and freakin' parking on the sidewalks? This council, especially District 5 council member Diane Benedetti, needs to make a comprehensive study of traffic patterns, vehicular compliance with basic laws we all were required to know before being licensed, etc.
Which streets in your neighborhood ought to have "one side of the street only" parking? Which intersections in your neighborhood are the most dangerous? Which streets, designed as neighborhood streets, are being forced by oblivious traffic planners and scofflaw drivers into being arterial thoroughfares? And on which streets in your neighborhood are the speed limits routinely disregarded?
Are these to be ignored? Shouldn't you pick up the phone and call the city, your council member, the Board of Public Works and Safety, the mayor?
I have my targets. How about you?
There is a contingent within the narrow confines of the six (unequal) districts of New Albany that consider that a plus. Shadow5 is at work. Why isn't the new mayor and council?
Seriously, there is plenty that can be done in just the next 31 days to move New Albany forward, to build a legacy for the "seventh generation," and to make our city a magnet for innovators, creators, and inclusive cohabitants, whether newcomers or members of Hoosier Heritage families.
Although I wasn't born here (an impediment in the minds of some), I had the good taste to set my hat for New Albany's best and brightest, coincidentally descended from New Albanians that preceded even the Scribner brothers.
Couldn't WE, the new and the old, agree that our children deserve a city to be proud of?
Project One for the new mayor and council: Clean up our streets, put an end to street flooding, and create through enforcement a regime where lawfulness replaces the current lawlessness on our streets.
Has there ever been a city where traffic laws were less obeyed? Has there ever been a city where the system says "anything goes" when it comes to stop signs, traffic signals, and freakin' parking on the sidewalks? This council, especially District 5 council member Diane Benedetti, needs to make a comprehensive study of traffic patterns, vehicular compliance with basic laws we all were required to know before being licensed, etc.
Which streets in your neighborhood ought to have "one side of the street only" parking? Which intersections in your neighborhood are the most dangerous? Which streets, designed as neighborhood streets, are being forced by oblivious traffic planners and scofflaw drivers into being arterial thoroughfares? And on which streets in your neighborhood are the speed limits routinely disregarded?
Are these to be ignored? Shouldn't you pick up the phone and call the city, your council member, the Board of Public Works and Safety, the mayor?
I have my targets. How about you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)