Among the strongest tools for targeted reinvestment in the community are those wielded by the Urban Enterprise Association. The UEA administers the incentives attached to businesses within the Urban Enterprise Zone. All downtown businesses and many commercial properties along Spring, Market, and Vincennes streets are within the Zone.
It's important for you to know if you are in the Zone. Check out the Zone boundaries at http://nauea.blogspot.com to see if your business can directly benefit from its tax deductions and incentives.
If you have, within the past year (2007) purchased a building, land, or machinery, or had any renovation work at a property within the zone, you should apply for 2007 Zone Investment Deductions and Incentives.
The investment must be a "qualified investment," according to UEA Executive Director Mike Ladd. There is a specific list of qualifying expenditures related to an enterprise zone location where a taxpayer's business is located.
A “qualified investment” includes:
(1) The purchase of a building.
(2) The purchase of new manufacturing or production equipment.
(3) Costs associated with the repair, rehabilitation, or modernization of an existing building and
related improvements.
(4) Onsite infrastructure improvements.
(5) The construction of a new building.
(6) Costs associated with retooling existing machinery.
When filing Indiana Schedule EZ
Parts 1A through 3 are due at the time the Indian State Tax Return is filed.
If, for some reason, the April 15 deadline is missed, file the EZB-E form, requesting a 30-day filing extension. That must be filed by May 15, 2008.
“The Investment Deduction really is the crown jewel the Zone has among the several economic development incentives available to Zone businesses and residents,” says Ladd.
According to Ladd, “The Enterprise Zone Investment Deduction Application (Form EZ-2) must be filed with the County Auditor between March 1st and May 10th of each year.” Once the form is filed, the County Auditor must notify the applicant of their determination by August 15th of the assessment year. Ladd tells us that “if the applicant is in disagreement of the Auditor’s determination, a complaint must be filed within forty-five (45 days) of the notification in the office of the clerk of the circuit or superior court.”
Ladd also notes that “If the form includes a deduction claim for personal property, a copy of the current assessment year Business Tangible Personal Property Assessment return (Form 102 or 103) must be attached.” This form and a personal property tax return are confidential pursuant to IC 6-1.1-35-9.
“This form is required to be filed each year a deduction is claimed even if no new equipment is acquired in that assessment year,” Mike reports.
Questions can be addressed to the Department of Local Government Finance at (317) 232-3777 or www.in.gov/dlgf/.
To find out if you are in the Enterprise Zone, go to www.nauea.blogspot.org and view the map, or call 812.944.3454.
The Enterprise Association board of directors is made up of Daniel Meyer, Brenda Scharlow, Ron McKulick, Larry Brumley, Robert Norwood, Roger Baylor, Carl Malysz, Steve Price, Al Goodman and Robert Norrington. The Executive Director is Michael C. Ladd.
Important filing deadlines follow:
IMPORTANT FILING DATES FOR
NEW ALBANY URBAN ENTERPRISE ZONE BUSINESSES
April 15 - Indiana Schedule EZ Parts 1A through 3 for Year 2007 are due with your State return. The Indiana Department of Revenue in cooperation with the IRS approves extensions.
May 9 - Deadline for filing Form EZ-2, accompanied by a copy of the current year Business Tangible Personal Property Assessment Return (Form 102 or 103). File in duplicate with the Floyd County Auditor for new personal and real property investments taxable as of March 1, 2008.
May 15 - Deadline to request an extension of up to 30 days to file Year 2008 Business Tangible Personal Property Assessment Return (Form 102 or 103) from the Township Assessor.
June 1 - Latest postmark date for the mailing of the completed calendar year 2007 EZB-R to the Indiana Economic Development Corporation.
June 1 - Latest postmark date to file the up to 45-day registration extension form, EZB-E, with the Indiana Economic Development Corporation.
June 13 - With a copy of the approved extension from the Township Assessor, Form 102 or 103 due to the Floyd County Auditor.
July 15 - With a copy of the approved extension letter, Form EZB-R is due to the Indiana Economic Development Corporation.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Heads Up: Snow Make-Up
The Common Council for the City of New Albany will have an uncommon meeting this evening, beginning at 6 p.m. for an educational session on TIF districts. Then, at 7:30, the meeting postponed after last Thursday's snow shower/ice coating will convene.
R-08-08 is a resolution regarding the expansion of the State Street/GreenValley Road/West Street Vicinity Economic Development Area, a TIF district previously discussed on these pages. The tax revenues derived from increased development in these districts is sequestered for use only in those areas. TIF districts are a means by which the city can target public investment and induce private investment, with the new revenues going to specified (usually infrastructure) projects.
The discussions this evening should be lively and it will be instructive to see where the new council members come down, both philosophically and practically. And it's hard to believe we won't get some amusing quotes from the usual grandstanding suspects.
This is one meeting where missing the early educational session would be a mistake. The voting will be an anticlimax. The work session should be both enlightening and entertaining.
Also on the agenda are additional appropriations for the unsafe building fund and the animal control fund, set for final reading and approval.
Noticeably missing from the agenda for this last February meeting is the second monthly installment of appropriations for Haven House, the homeless outreach program that received a $5,000 appropriation in January with the promise of similar appropriations in each of the following months.
With the next meeting of council scheduled just four days later, it will be interesting to see if that agenda has already been set.
R-08-08 is a resolution regarding the expansion of the State Street/GreenValley Road/West Street Vicinity Economic Development Area, a TIF district previously discussed on these pages. The tax revenues derived from increased development in these districts is sequestered for use only in those areas. TIF districts are a means by which the city can target public investment and induce private investment, with the new revenues going to specified (usually infrastructure) projects.
The discussions this evening should be lively and it will be instructive to see where the new council members come down, both philosophically and practically. And it's hard to believe we won't get some amusing quotes from the usual grandstanding suspects.
This is one meeting where missing the early educational session would be a mistake. The voting will be an anticlimax. The work session should be both enlightening and entertaining.
Also on the agenda are additional appropriations for the unsafe building fund and the animal control fund, set for final reading and approval.
Noticeably missing from the agenda for this last February meeting is the second monthly installment of appropriations for Haven House, the homeless outreach program that received a $5,000 appropriation in January with the promise of similar appropriations in each of the following months.
With the next meeting of council scheduled just four days later, it will be interesting to see if that agenda has already been set.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Through a Glass Darkly II
Let's call this an open letter to Mayor England, and by extension, his lieutenants.
First, let us point out that we have never been rigid opponents of the use of tax increment financing (TIF) districts. Their novelty may have worn off, but their utility is not questioned by this blog. Especially in the current anti-social and anti-democratic environment fostered by a few idealogues, TIFs may be the only effective way of salvaging the promise of our city.
However, we are concerned by what appears to be subterfuge in the pending proposal on the city council's agenda to expand some of our TIF districts.
From what we have been able to gather in the past 48 hours, it appears that at least one of these "expansions" is little more than a diversion of funds from the tax rolls with no pressing need for the diversion.
A new residential development is the ostensible beneficiary of TIF bonds in an expanded State Street TIF district. Yet, the developer himself warrants that he does not need (and presumably did not ask for) TIF bonding to complete his project.
Don't hold me to these figures, but the way I hear it, about $4.5 million would be bonded out for infrastructure improvements in the State Street TIF district. The specific development being used as the stalking horse for this expansion, however, would cost only about $500,000 for streets, curbing, sewers, and attendant infrastructure implementation.
It might well be that this blog would be highly supportive of dedicating a portion of "new" tax revenues to improving the district's infrastructure. But because we are not "inside the tent," we can only assume that another Pauline end run (as in the previous post) is being attempted by the administration.
Is the England administration attempting to race through an approval of TIF expansion without telling us the truth? Are they unwilling to defend the expansion on policy grounds, but willing to muscle its approval through an inexperienced council?
We'll grant that the current schedule for the council calls for a pre-meeting educational session about the philosophical and practical aspects of TIF districts. A few minutes later, the council will be voting on the expansion.
We understand that a few council members, even those who might ordinarily be persuadable, are bristling at the lack of transparency in this latest England throwdown showdown vote.
Mr. England and his delegate, Mr. Malysz, owe it to us to shoot straight with us and to justify this proposed TIF expansion. No matter what goals and dreams this administration may have, there is no excuse for seeking legislation that is designed in darkness. Government in the sunshine is the price the executive must pay to earn public support.
Until we see more transparency, we must urge the defeat of this administration-sponsored measure. Our representatives, and especially the compromised D5, should demand an open deliberation of this measure with a full council in attendance. Anything less would mark them as complicit in a process that cultivates suspicion. Mushrooms may grow well in the basement. Illicit crops (with grow lights) may thrive in underground settings.
But confidence in government is a crop that requires sunlight. Let's wait until the sun comes up on this measure.
First, let us point out that we have never been rigid opponents of the use of tax increment financing (TIF) districts. Their novelty may have worn off, but their utility is not questioned by this blog. Especially in the current anti-social and anti-democratic environment fostered by a few idealogues, TIFs may be the only effective way of salvaging the promise of our city.
However, we are concerned by what appears to be subterfuge in the pending proposal on the city council's agenda to expand some of our TIF districts.
From what we have been able to gather in the past 48 hours, it appears that at least one of these "expansions" is little more than a diversion of funds from the tax rolls with no pressing need for the diversion.
A new residential development is the ostensible beneficiary of TIF bonds in an expanded State Street TIF district. Yet, the developer himself warrants that he does not need (and presumably did not ask for) TIF bonding to complete his project.
Don't hold me to these figures, but the way I hear it, about $4.5 million would be bonded out for infrastructure improvements in the State Street TIF district. The specific development being used as the stalking horse for this expansion, however, would cost only about $500,000 for streets, curbing, sewers, and attendant infrastructure implementation.
It might well be that this blog would be highly supportive of dedicating a portion of "new" tax revenues to improving the district's infrastructure. But because we are not "inside the tent," we can only assume that another Pauline end run (as in the previous post) is being attempted by the administration.
Is the England administration attempting to race through an approval of TIF expansion without telling us the truth? Are they unwilling to defend the expansion on policy grounds, but willing to muscle its approval through an inexperienced council?
We'll grant that the current schedule for the council calls for a pre-meeting educational session about the philosophical and practical aspects of TIF districts. A few minutes later, the council will be voting on the expansion.
We understand that a few council members, even those who might ordinarily be persuadable, are bristling at the lack of transparency in this latest England throwdown showdown vote.
Mr. England and his delegate, Mr. Malysz, owe it to us to shoot straight with us and to justify this proposed TIF expansion. No matter what goals and dreams this administration may have, there is no excuse for seeking legislation that is designed in darkness. Government in the sunshine is the price the executive must pay to earn public support.
Until we see more transparency, we must urge the defeat of this administration-sponsored measure. Our representatives, and especially the compromised D5, should demand an open deliberation of this measure with a full council in attendance. Anything less would mark them as complicit in a process that cultivates suspicion. Mushrooms may grow well in the basement. Illicit crops (with grow lights) may thrive in underground settings.
But confidence in government is a crop that requires sunlight. Let's wait until the sun comes up on this measure.
Through a Glass Darkly (Updated)
We're willing to be proved wrong, honestly. But as these things go, shadow5 tends to be pretty well clued in. So please, council, tell me I'm wrong. Via the City Clerk, Marcey Wisman, they did.
I learned this past week that the New Albany City Council held a full, formal educational meeting, purportedly of all nine members, without ever posting a public notice. Ms. Wisman has provided us with a copy of the notice, which she says was issued 7 days prior to a Feb. 20 meeting.
Here are the particulars. The council met as a body with Police Chief Greg Crabtree to discuss the police department's (and the administration's, we presume) needs and wants during this term. Although the meeting notice (which I still hadn't seen until Feb. 26) claimed the purpose of meeting to discuss "confidential" drug task force issues, I am informed that it was not limited to those subjects.
Said meeting was held without the public in attendance. No public notice was given. Purportedly, President Gahan designated the meeting as an "executive" session, one which the public would not have been allowed to observe in any event. But that does not relieve the council from posting and issuing public notice of the meeting, a fact that the City Clerk could have easily advised them of.
And if proper notice was given and merely missed by ALL local residents and media, the meeting would not have qualified as one where the public can be excluded.
Here is how the governing statute rules:
The council is subject to the Indiana Open Door Law (IC -14-1.5). No one will dispute that.
A meeting (of the council) is a gathering of a majority of the members...for the purpose of taking official action upon public business...with few exceptions, all meetings...are open to the public and may be observed and recorded...Many officials fail to understand the breadth of activities that constitute official action. "Official action" means to: 1. receive information 2. deliberate 3. make recommendations 4. establish policy 5. make decisions, or 6. take final action.
The mere act of receiving information is sufficient, when a majority of the members of the governing body is present, to require compliance with the Open Door Law.
Public notice must be given for all meetings, including executive sessions, at least 48 hours before the meeting.
We call on President Gahan to publicly apologize for this violation of the Open Door Law and to institute procedures to ensure that this council will not disrespect its constituents by future violations. Absent that, it's hard to see how lawsuit to obtain a declaratory judgment declaring the violation and enjoining the council from future violations can be avoided.
Ironically, this blog has called for just such a meeting to take place. We do not object to the council receiving information from the police department.
But to blithely convene such a meeting without public notice, or to hold such a meeting on proper notice but to misuse the "executive session" exceptions to the Open Door Law, is highly objectionable and cannot be countenanced.
We ask, as an aside, where the local media were on this?
And if we are wrong, if in fact a public notice was given, we apologize. Nonetheless, the issue is well worth raising. And if notice was given, it is still disturbing that the public was prevented from attending by the use of the pretense of the council meeting in "executive" session.
This meeting was clearly not eligible for the exemptions under the law. And it creates yet another cloud of suspicion over the openness of our city goverment. All who participated should issue public apologies immediately and pledge that no such violations will occur in the future.
The council must guard against holding private meetings under pretexts. Supposedly, at least some portion of the meeting included discussion of specific projects under investigation by the police. I seriously doubt that a discussion of such things in a public meeting would have compromised any investigation. And if seriously confidential investigative matters were discussed with the council, who has confidence that every single member of the council would be capable of keeping those confidences?
We have council members extremely closely tied to prime suspects under active investigation. How are some of these council members considered to have the judgment to keep confidential matters secret?
This briefing was, in all likelihood, general in scope and more of a P.R. session than anything. If so, it does not fall outside the Open Door Law, even if it was held in the offices of the city council counsel. And if it did qualify to be a closed meeting, should city council members be made privy to confidential investigative matters? Can they be trusted to keep those confidences 100 percent, to not use that information as political capital or as favors to friends?
We were apparently wrong about the improper notice, although I did not read of the meeting in any local media. We thank Ms. Wisman for responding to our inquiries and will point out that she, as city clerk, was not in attendance. She has assured us that a memorandum of the meeting will be prepared and made available to the public.
I learned this past week that the New Albany City Council held a full, formal educational meeting, purportedly of all nine members, without ever posting a public notice. Ms. Wisman has provided us with a copy of the notice, which she says was issued 7 days prior to a Feb. 20 meeting.
Here are the particulars. The council met as a body with Police Chief Greg Crabtree to discuss the police department's (and the administration's, we presume) needs and wants during this term. Although the meeting notice (which I still hadn't seen until Feb. 26) claimed the purpose of meeting to discuss "confidential" drug task force issues, I am informed that it was not limited to those subjects.
Said meeting was held without the public in attendance. No public notice was given. Purportedly, President Gahan designated the meeting as an "executive" session, one which the public would not have been allowed to observe in any event. But that does not relieve the council from posting and issuing public notice of the meeting, a fact that the City Clerk could have easily advised them of.
And if proper notice was given and merely missed by ALL local residents and media, the meeting would not have qualified as one where the public can be excluded.
Here is how the governing statute rules:
The council is subject to the Indiana Open Door Law (IC -14-1.5). No one will dispute that.
A meeting (of the council) is a gathering of a majority of the members...for the purpose of taking official action upon public business...with few exceptions, all meetings...are open to the public and may be observed and recorded...Many officials fail to understand the breadth of activities that constitute official action. "Official action" means to: 1. receive information 2. deliberate 3. make recommendations 4. establish policy 5. make decisions, or 6. take final action.
The mere act of receiving information is sufficient, when a majority of the members of the governing body is present, to require compliance with the Open Door Law.
Public notice must be given for all meetings, including executive sessions, at least 48 hours before the meeting.
We call on President Gahan to publicly apologize for this violation of the Open Door Law and to institute procedures to ensure that this council will not disrespect its constituents by future violations. Absent that, it's hard to see how lawsuit to obtain a declaratory judgment declaring the violation and enjoining the council from future violations can be avoided.
Ironically, this blog has called for just such a meeting to take place. We do not object to the council receiving information from the police department.
But to blithely convene such a meeting without public notice, or to hold such a meeting on proper notice but to misuse the "executive session" exceptions to the Open Door Law, is highly objectionable and cannot be countenanced.
We ask, as an aside, where the local media were on this?
And if we are wrong, if in fact a public notice was given, we apologize. Nonetheless, the issue is well worth raising. And if notice was given, it is still disturbing that the public was prevented from attending by the use of the pretense of the council meeting in "executive" session.
This meeting was clearly not eligible for the exemptions under the law. And it creates yet another cloud of suspicion over the openness of our city goverment. All who participated should issue public apologies immediately and pledge that no such violations will occur in the future.
The council must guard against holding private meetings under pretexts. Supposedly, at least some portion of the meeting included discussion of specific projects under investigation by the police. I seriously doubt that a discussion of such things in a public meeting would have compromised any investigation. And if seriously confidential investigative matters were discussed with the council, who has confidence that every single member of the council would be capable of keeping those confidences?
We have council members extremely closely tied to prime suspects under active investigation. How are some of these council members considered to have the judgment to keep confidential matters secret?
This briefing was, in all likelihood, general in scope and more of a P.R. session than anything. If so, it does not fall outside the Open Door Law, even if it was held in the offices of the city council counsel. And if it did qualify to be a closed meeting, should city council members be made privy to confidential investigative matters? Can they be trusted to keep those confidences 100 percent, to not use that information as political capital or as favors to friends?
We were apparently wrong about the improper notice, although I did not read of the meeting in any local media. We thank Ms. Wisman for responding to our inquiries and will point out that she, as city clerk, was not in attendance. She has assured us that a memorandum of the meeting will be prepared and made available to the public.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Combating the Lies
The next time you run into one of the "repeal the property tax" loons, maybe this blog post will come to mind.
We've previously discussed the lunacy of exempting accumulated wealth from taxation. But that is a philosophical question best debated elsewhere.
Today's post will try to lay out facts, not philosophy. The squealing pigs who have been evading their fair share of the tax burden for the last several years have been empowered by the media (who are always looking for a new 'story') as their property taxes were, at last, equalized with yours and mine. That some people saw their property taxes rise has masked the facts.
If you've been living in the same state and particularly in New Albany as long as I have, you certainly can't say that the level of services we receive from our local government is luxurious or exorbitant. There are no bells and whistles. Hell, there are hardly basic services being delivered. Our police force is woefully understaffed, making each of us prey for opportunistic crime. Our property values are diminished by unpaved and flooded streets, eroding infrastructure, and drug dealers who have little fear of being caught. Why, some don't even fear to invite the police into their stash rooms!
So what's the real situation with Hoosier State tax burdens. Well, according to the Tax Foundation, things aren't nearly so bad as the pigs would have you believe.
In 2007, Indiana ranked 30th in the nation in the level of its tax burden. That includes all taxes - federal, state, and local. One can assume that the federal tax burden is pretty evenly spread across the nation - Hoosiers don't have a magic elixir that enables us to have lower taxes than the residents of other states.
30th in the nation. How then does anyone fall for the lie that we are overtaxed locally? The fact is we aren't.
But how about the trend? On average, over the past ten years, Indiana has ranked 30th. On average, over the past five years, Indiana has ranked 30th. Sure doesn't look like a trend to me.
You may ask, "Who is the Tax Foundation?" They're hardly "tax and spend" liberals. Created in 1937 as a reaction to FDR's New Deal, they deal solely with the facts as they find them, with a bias toward lowering government spending. One of their principles is tax neutrality.
Local government taxation is already limited, and severely. Even if we were able to increase the tax base, existing law prohibits local government budgets from growing more than 4.3% a year. Imposing additional caps is not the answer. In fact, government investment in economic development, adequate policing, codes enforcement, and infrastructure will increase our property values while lowering our tax burden as a percentage of our accumulated wealth. Government spending can't grow, but the tax base can.
The loons have it bass ackwards. Investment is what will lower taxes. The ideologues who want to cap property taxes are only trying to shift the burden onto businesses and consumers. The landlords behind all this are asking the legislature to give them a 33.3% tax abatement, preferring their businesses over others. An added penny on the sales tax will put Indiana retailers at a further disadvantage competitively and will drive businesses with options to neighboring states or put them out of business altogether.
There is nothing neutral about the current property tax "reform." It is dangerous and we'll all live to regret being gulled by the volume of nonsense being bandied about in this election year. Call or write your legislators and let them know how you feel about it. It's not too late.
In New Albany, these are your representatives:
Call Connie toll-free at (800) 382-9467. Her e-mail address is s46@in.gov.
We've previously discussed the lunacy of exempting accumulated wealth from taxation. But that is a philosophical question best debated elsewhere.
Today's post will try to lay out facts, not philosophy. The squealing pigs who have been evading their fair share of the tax burden for the last several years have been empowered by the media (who are always looking for a new 'story') as their property taxes were, at last, equalized with yours and mine. That some people saw their property taxes rise has masked the facts.
If you've been living in the same state and particularly in New Albany as long as I have, you certainly can't say that the level of services we receive from our local government is luxurious or exorbitant. There are no bells and whistles. Hell, there are hardly basic services being delivered. Our police force is woefully understaffed, making each of us prey for opportunistic crime. Our property values are diminished by unpaved and flooded streets, eroding infrastructure, and drug dealers who have little fear of being caught. Why, some don't even fear to invite the police into their stash rooms!
So what's the real situation with Hoosier State tax burdens. Well, according to the Tax Foundation, things aren't nearly so bad as the pigs would have you believe.
In 2007, Indiana ranked 30th in the nation in the level of its tax burden. That includes all taxes - federal, state, and local. One can assume that the federal tax burden is pretty evenly spread across the nation - Hoosiers don't have a magic elixir that enables us to have lower taxes than the residents of other states.
30th in the nation. How then does anyone fall for the lie that we are overtaxed locally? The fact is we aren't.
But how about the trend? On average, over the past ten years, Indiana has ranked 30th. On average, over the past five years, Indiana has ranked 30th. Sure doesn't look like a trend to me.
You may ask, "Who is the Tax Foundation?" They're hardly "tax and spend" liberals. Created in 1937 as a reaction to FDR's New Deal, they deal solely with the facts as they find them, with a bias toward lowering government spending. One of their principles is tax neutrality.
Local government taxation is already limited, and severely. Even if we were able to increase the tax base, existing law prohibits local government budgets from growing more than 4.3% a year. Imposing additional caps is not the answer. In fact, government investment in economic development, adequate policing, codes enforcement, and infrastructure will increase our property values while lowering our tax burden as a percentage of our accumulated wealth. Government spending can't grow, but the tax base can.
The loons have it bass ackwards. Investment is what will lower taxes. The ideologues who want to cap property taxes are only trying to shift the burden onto businesses and consumers. The landlords behind all this are asking the legislature to give them a 33.3% tax abatement, preferring their businesses over others. An added penny on the sales tax will put Indiana retailers at a further disadvantage competitively and will drive businesses with options to neighboring states or put them out of business altogether.
There is nothing neutral about the current property tax "reform." It is dangerous and we'll all live to regret being gulled by the volume of nonsense being bandied about in this election year. Call or write your legislators and let them know how you feel about it. It's not too late.
In New Albany, these are your representatives:
Rep. Bill Cochran or Sen. Connie Sipes
200 W. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Call Bill toll-free at (800) 382-9842. His e-mail address is h72@in.gov.
Call Connie toll-free at (800) 382-9467. Her e-mail address is s46@in.gov.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
SOC, SOS, SOP
OK, no messing around. This is the week of the long-touted "State of the City" address, which against all hopes is destined to be, in most respects, an S.O.S. Which, unfortunately, is Standard Operating Procedure.
Mayor England would surely have hoped to make this much more than a cry for help, but frankly, things are looking grim. With the possible exceptions of our local legislators, both of whom are up for reelection, the weak-willed legislature is almost certain to succumb to the vocal pressures of the ideologically driven "repeal the property tax" loons. In one form or another, Mitch's cabal is determined to put the screws to local government. Superannuated timeservers like Larry McAllister will hide in the bushes while claiming they aren't affected by such draconian and unjustified measures as a cap on property taxes.
The "starve the government" types won't take any responsibility for the anarchy destined to ensue. And afterward? The odds are against rationality, putting courage at a premium.
If our information is correct, readers should marshal all their resources to support Mrs. Sipes re-election. Legislators like her are our only hope for the future.
But back to this week. ONE event will dominate the week. The mayor's S.O.C. Thursday, sometime after 7:30, the mayor will mount the podium at the city council meeting and lay out his vision for the next year. Campaign promises may or may not reappear.
This blogger hasn't started the clock on the mayor and his administration. It does start Thursday night, however.
We hope that Doug England will not be preoccupied with the negative ramifications of the General Assembly's incipient lunacy. This is an opportunity to outline a vision, not an occasion to complain about the limits of government.
We don't expect to see the mayor make any new bold announcements. We'll be satisfied if he renews his commitment to his previously documented promises. We don't expect to see any solutions, given the dynamic nature of pending legislation.
We've said it before. Mr. England has it in his hands to save the city and be remembered for decades. He also has the opportunity to surrender to the death-spiral that is the current political mood of New Albany.
The city council has not distinguished itself so far. It is then up to the mayor to lead. We pray that he will take the chance to establish a legacy that our children will honor.
See you Thursday at Hauss Square.
Mayor England would surely have hoped to make this much more than a cry for help, but frankly, things are looking grim. With the possible exceptions of our local legislators, both of whom are up for reelection, the weak-willed legislature is almost certain to succumb to the vocal pressures of the ideologically driven "repeal the property tax" loons. In one form or another, Mitch's cabal is determined to put the screws to local government. Superannuated timeservers like Larry McAllister will hide in the bushes while claiming they aren't affected by such draconian and unjustified measures as a cap on property taxes.
The "starve the government" types won't take any responsibility for the anarchy destined to ensue. And afterward? The odds are against rationality, putting courage at a premium.
If our information is correct, readers should marshal all their resources to support Mrs. Sipes re-election. Legislators like her are our only hope for the future.
But back to this week. ONE event will dominate the week. The mayor's S.O.C. Thursday, sometime after 7:30, the mayor will mount the podium at the city council meeting and lay out his vision for the next year. Campaign promises may or may not reappear.
This blogger hasn't started the clock on the mayor and his administration. It does start Thursday night, however.
We hope that Doug England will not be preoccupied with the negative ramifications of the General Assembly's incipient lunacy. This is an opportunity to outline a vision, not an occasion to complain about the limits of government.
We don't expect to see the mayor make any new bold announcements. We'll be satisfied if he renews his commitment to his previously documented promises. We don't expect to see any solutions, given the dynamic nature of pending legislation.
We've said it before. Mr. England has it in his hands to save the city and be remembered for decades. He also has the opportunity to surrender to the death-spiral that is the current political mood of New Albany.
The city council has not distinguished itself so far. It is then up to the mayor to lead. We pray that he will take the chance to establish a legacy that our children will honor.
See you Thursday at Hauss Square.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Getting Real
I just heard about a planned leadership training program that's destined to begin soon in New Albany, and I couldn't be more excited after hearing what I'll call "Principle One" of the program.
Permit me to "crib" directly from the training manual.
Working with people to build a grassroots organization is different from making friends. You are in the public arena. But when you are listening to someone who might have some influence on the success of your idea or issue, remember this guideline: You are in a public relationship now, not a private or personal relationship. If the person disagrees with you and you disagree with him or her on this issue, this disagreement is not with the person, but on the issue.
I've tried to internalize that advice in my own "public relationships," although I couldn't put it as succinctly as this: No permanent friends. No permanent enemies.
Distinguish Public and Private Relationships
The distinction between the public and private arenas is often hard to understand because there is little understanding in our media or educational system about public life. People in public life, including most elected officials, often act as if they want to be your friend. They kiss your babies, eat your food, and describe all the ways they are just like you, whoever you are. They want you to like them as people. That is because many people vote for the person they like, not necessarily for the person whose public policies meet their own needs.
Don't confuse or combine the person and the issue. Someone who disagrees with you on an issue is not an enemy. The disagreement is not personal. Don't hold grudges. Someone who disagrees with you on one issue may be helpful on another. Don't assume that people's economic self-interest will automatically put them on the side of an issue. Follow what they do - not who you guess they are.
Personally, I like that advice. Having had no small experience with people in public life, I'm long past trying to cultivate "friendships" when trying to effect change. Friendships are transient, and I've determined that "being helpful on" an issue is about all that can be expected. If a policy can be put into effect, who was involved is far less important to me than the end result.
In short, being liked isn't an objective, and cultivating allies whose principal objective is being liked is considerably less important than accomplishing common goals.
I would go so far as to say that far too many of the people with whom I share common goals have been slow to arrive at that same realization. Building strength in any organization will require its members to concentrate on the end goal and to recognize that any organization whose members have all their sharp edges cut off will be both brittle and blunted.
One City, One Destiny.
Permit me to "crib" directly from the training manual.
Working with people to build a grassroots organization is different from making friends. You are in the public arena. But when you are listening to someone who might have some influence on the success of your idea or issue, remember this guideline: You are in a public relationship now, not a private or personal relationship. If the person disagrees with you and you disagree with him or her on this issue, this disagreement is not with the person, but on the issue.
I've tried to internalize that advice in my own "public relationships," although I couldn't put it as succinctly as this: No permanent friends. No permanent enemies.
Distinguish Public and Private Relationships
The distinction between the public and private arenas is often hard to understand because there is little understanding in our media or educational system about public life. People in public life, including most elected officials, often act as if they want to be your friend. They kiss your babies, eat your food, and describe all the ways they are just like you, whoever you are. They want you to like them as people. That is because many people vote for the person they like, not necessarily for the person whose public policies meet their own needs.
Don't confuse or combine the person and the issue. Someone who disagrees with you on an issue is not an enemy. The disagreement is not personal. Don't hold grudges. Someone who disagrees with you on one issue may be helpful on another. Don't assume that people's economic self-interest will automatically put them on the side of an issue. Follow what they do - not who you guess they are.
Personally, I like that advice. Having had no small experience with people in public life, I'm long past trying to cultivate "friendships" when trying to effect change. Friendships are transient, and I've determined that "being helpful on" an issue is about all that can be expected. If a policy can be put into effect, who was involved is far less important to me than the end result.
In short, being liked isn't an objective, and cultivating allies whose principal objective is being liked is considerably less important than accomplishing common goals.
I would go so far as to say that far too many of the people with whom I share common goals have been slow to arrive at that same realization. Building strength in any organization will require its members to concentrate on the end goal and to recognize that any organization whose members have all their sharp edges cut off will be both brittle and blunted.
One City, One Destiny.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
A New City Hall?
I've previously advocated for city government to relocate from its current premises on Hauss Square. Some in positions to do something it share that inclination.
Such a move would make room for the growing space needs of the Floyd County government. Why Floyd County government is growing while New Albany's is shrinking is a question for another day, but we do know that the justice system is crying for more space.
But where might the city government move to? The Spring Street fire hall has been suggested. The Fair Store offers some advantages.
But a new candidate may present itself. If my sources are correct, a certain property on Mansion Row falls under the asset forfeiture provisions of the criminal laws. If that property turns out to have been used as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise, or if the proceeds of an ongoing criminal enterprise were used to acquire or support it, it can be seized, pre- or post-conviction. Early word is that the relevant agencies are inclined to seize this property.
If New Albany police were instrumental in the investigation, the city may be eligible for up to 80% of the proceeds. Wouldn't it be karmic if the city were to use this Main Street building as its new center of government operations?
Such a move would make room for the growing space needs of the Floyd County government. Why Floyd County government is growing while New Albany's is shrinking is a question for another day, but we do know that the justice system is crying for more space.
But where might the city government move to? The Spring Street fire hall has been suggested. The Fair Store offers some advantages.
But a new candidate may present itself. If my sources are correct, a certain property on Mansion Row falls under the asset forfeiture provisions of the criminal laws. If that property turns out to have been used as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise, or if the proceeds of an ongoing criminal enterprise were used to acquire or support it, it can be seized, pre- or post-conviction. Early word is that the relevant agencies are inclined to seize this property.
If New Albany police were instrumental in the investigation, the city may be eligible for up to 80% of the proceeds. Wouldn't it be karmic if the city were to use this Main Street building as its new center of government operations?
Monday, February 11, 2008
"Round here, we measure our mayors in inches."
I was reminded of this by a wise, mature woman whose knowledge of New Albany and its politics goes way back.
It sounds as if it could be a double entendre, and I'm sure it created a grin or two from January 2000 to December 2003.
But in case you haven't heard it before, it reflects this fact: A mayor's first big snow is his (or her) first big test. The mayor is measured by the number of inches removed from the streets in the shortest amount of time.
I called it "Doug's First Crisis." It will be interesting to see how Mayor England and his team deal with this unexpectedly bountiful snowfall.
We invite you to contribute your own "New Albanisms" in the comments section below.
It sounds as if it could be a double entendre, and I'm sure it created a grin or two from January 2000 to December 2003.
But in case you haven't heard it before, it reflects this fact: A mayor's first big snow is his (or her) first big test. The mayor is measured by the number of inches removed from the streets in the shortest amount of time.
I called it "Doug's First Crisis." It will be interesting to see how Mayor England and his team deal with this unexpectedly bountiful snowfall.
We invite you to contribute your own "New Albanisms" in the comments section below.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Meat and Potatoes
A group of us thought it was downright silly to be discussing the propriety of the New Albany deciding to sue the sewer and stormwater boards without learning the particulars.
You will recall that the "old" council authorized its attorney, Jerry Ulrich, to sue after those boards signed management contracts with EMC. EMC had been managing the sewer department under the stewardship of the "old" five-member sewer board. The deadline for dissolving that contract had expired, triggering an automatic two-year renewal.
Given the fact that the board could now see the end of rigid EPA monitoring and the end of the environmental consent decree, several members sat down to negotiate a new five-year contract on terms more favorable to the city. The stormwater board executed a smaller management contract with the same EMC.
A few council members, feeling left out and prone to see a conspiracy under every rock, began to scream bloody murder that the new contract was a sweetheart deal and that it should have been put up for competitive bidding.
A majority voted to file suit in 2007. A majority of the new council voted to withdraw the lawsuit after a few initial hearings before Judge Terrance Cody seemed to indicate their case was weak and after many pointed out their case was destined to be fruitless.
A combination of lobbying by the losing faction and a revised legal estimate created a bizarre situation where the city council, over the course of 12 days, was suing, was not suing, and was again suing to have the contracts (now nearly 15 months on) voided.
So what is the council asking for? And how have the putative defendants responded? Here are the meat and potatoes.
First off, who did the council sue? Instead of suing the utility and the city, they sued the individual members who made up the board when the suit was filed. Then it was nominally a five-member board, but Todd Solomon resigned, leaving Mayor James Garner and Bill Utz, plus Kevin Zurschmiede and Larry Kochert, who also served as council members (Do they get to sit in on the legal wrangling for both sides in the case?).
Council, in its pleadings, describes the EMC contract as a "public work" (more about that later). If that were the case, they say, competitive bidding would have been required. It is undisputed that no competitive bids were solicited. Council asks the court to void the contracts.
The council's claim against Mayor Garner as head of the stormwater board is similar. In addition, the council pleadings seem to consider the stormwater board's inability to provide a budget document as grounds for voiding its contract with EMC.
The council did not, as a body or individually, sue the relevant boards or the city that authorized both.
------------------------------
Attorneys for the putative defendants (Garner, Utz, Zurschmiede, Kochert, and Garner again) responded with motions to dismiss.
Defendants maintain that the EMC contract doesn't fall under the requirements of statutes governing "public works," but rather is in the nature of a "professional services (management) contract," and thus is not subject to competitive bidding requirements.
A "public work" is defined by statute as the construction, reconstruction, alteration, or renovation of a public building, airport facility, or other structure that is paid for out of a public fund or out of a special assessment...
Construction of sewers and drains is included as a public work provided it is paid for "out of a public fund or out of a special assessment."
Defendants maintain that the contract, on its face and in fact, is for the operation and maintenance of the Plant and Collection System programs. It does not contemplate the construction of anything that is to be paid from relevant funds.
The defendants also cite cases that make it clear that a bidding process are unlikely to provide any advantage to the public body when technical judgment and professional skills and experiences are the subject of the contract.
Perhaps more dispositive is the issue of standing, which defendants assert strongly against the city council's complaint. While "any person interested under a...written contract" may seek a declaration of rights under the contract, the city council fails to identify what rights, status, or other legal relation might be affected by the contract, say the defendants. The established sewer board was, they say, acting within its exclusive duties in executing the contract. The city council has delegated that authority and are not "interested parties" under the contract.
Tellingly, the defendants assert, the city council failed to sue the proper party or parties. Statute requires the suit to be against the city. Under IC 34-13-6-1, neither the sewer board nor its individual members can be sued. Only the city itself.
Finally, the city council waited too long to file its suit. State law requires such suit to be filed within 30 days of the action complained of. Oh, and all defendants claim the suit should fail, also, because it fails to join EMC as a defendant.
Should the city council fail to prevail on even one of these issues, the case is over.
The good news from that is that the exposure to legal fees, absent an appeal, will be limited if the court promptly dismisses the suit on one or more of these grounds.
Which brings us to this: Why, on such tenuous grounds and in the face of almost certain rebuff, did this city council vote 7-2 to proceed with its suit?
Why has the council remained mum about the nature of its case? It is, after all, a public record. Yet we've heard practically no discussion (in public session) about the reasons for this suit. Such attempted secrecy lends itself to suspicion and distrust. And it certainly makes this observer believe that the case has more to do with grandstanding than with actual public policy.
Tell us what you think. The pleadings are available for inspection in the circuit court office, and now, at various other publicly available venues in the city. Read them for yourselves and offer us your own evaluations.
You will recall that the "old" council authorized its attorney, Jerry Ulrich, to sue after those boards signed management contracts with EMC. EMC had been managing the sewer department under the stewardship of the "old" five-member sewer board. The deadline for dissolving that contract had expired, triggering an automatic two-year renewal.
Given the fact that the board could now see the end of rigid EPA monitoring and the end of the environmental consent decree, several members sat down to negotiate a new five-year contract on terms more favorable to the city. The stormwater board executed a smaller management contract with the same EMC.
A few council members, feeling left out and prone to see a conspiracy under every rock, began to scream bloody murder that the new contract was a sweetheart deal and that it should have been put up for competitive bidding.
A majority voted to file suit in 2007. A majority of the new council voted to withdraw the lawsuit after a few initial hearings before Judge Terrance Cody seemed to indicate their case was weak and after many pointed out their case was destined to be fruitless.
A combination of lobbying by the losing faction and a revised legal estimate created a bizarre situation where the city council, over the course of 12 days, was suing, was not suing, and was again suing to have the contracts (now nearly 15 months on) voided.
So what is the council asking for? And how have the putative defendants responded? Here are the meat and potatoes.
First off, who did the council sue? Instead of suing the utility and the city, they sued the individual members who made up the board when the suit was filed. Then it was nominally a five-member board, but Todd Solomon resigned, leaving Mayor James Garner and Bill Utz, plus Kevin Zurschmiede and Larry Kochert, who also served as council members (Do they get to sit in on the legal wrangling for both sides in the case?).
Council, in its pleadings, describes the EMC contract as a "public work" (more about that later). If that were the case, they say, competitive bidding would have been required. It is undisputed that no competitive bids were solicited. Council asks the court to void the contracts.
The council's claim against Mayor Garner as head of the stormwater board is similar. In addition, the council pleadings seem to consider the stormwater board's inability to provide a budget document as grounds for voiding its contract with EMC.
The council did not, as a body or individually, sue the relevant boards or the city that authorized both.
------------------------------
Attorneys for the putative defendants (Garner, Utz, Zurschmiede, Kochert, and Garner again) responded with motions to dismiss.
Defendants maintain that the EMC contract doesn't fall under the requirements of statutes governing "public works," but rather is in the nature of a "professional services (management) contract," and thus is not subject to competitive bidding requirements.
A "public work" is defined by statute as the construction, reconstruction, alteration, or renovation of a public building, airport facility, or other structure that is paid for out of a public fund or out of a special assessment...
Construction of sewers and drains is included as a public work provided it is paid for "out of a public fund or out of a special assessment."
Defendants maintain that the contract, on its face and in fact, is for the operation and maintenance of the Plant and Collection System programs. It does not contemplate the construction of anything that is to be paid from relevant funds.
The defendants also cite cases that make it clear that a bidding process are unlikely to provide any advantage to the public body when technical judgment and professional skills and experiences are the subject of the contract.
Perhaps more dispositive is the issue of standing, which defendants assert strongly against the city council's complaint. While "any person interested under a...written contract" may seek a declaration of rights under the contract, the city council fails to identify what rights, status, or other legal relation might be affected by the contract, say the defendants. The established sewer board was, they say, acting within its exclusive duties in executing the contract. The city council has delegated that authority and are not "interested parties" under the contract.
Tellingly, the defendants assert, the city council failed to sue the proper party or parties. Statute requires the suit to be against the city. Under IC 34-13-6-1, neither the sewer board nor its individual members can be sued. Only the city itself.
Finally, the city council waited too long to file its suit. State law requires such suit to be filed within 30 days of the action complained of. Oh, and all defendants claim the suit should fail, also, because it fails to join EMC as a defendant.
Should the city council fail to prevail on even one of these issues, the case is over.
The good news from that is that the exposure to legal fees, absent an appeal, will be limited if the court promptly dismisses the suit on one or more of these grounds.
Which brings us to this: Why, on such tenuous grounds and in the face of almost certain rebuff, did this city council vote 7-2 to proceed with its suit?
Why has the council remained mum about the nature of its case? It is, after all, a public record. Yet we've heard practically no discussion (in public session) about the reasons for this suit. Such attempted secrecy lends itself to suspicion and distrust. And it certainly makes this observer believe that the case has more to do with grandstanding than with actual public policy.
Tell us what you think. The pleadings are available for inspection in the circuit court office, and now, at various other publicly available venues in the city. Read them for yourselves and offer us your own evaluations.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Perfect?
So much of what we seek in a candidate (whether for President or for at-large council member, mayor or governor) is unattainable. Men or women for whom we have given "all" in support would be from bizarro-world if they gave us exactly the votes and policy prescriptions we prefer.
All we can hope for is that the character of "our" candidate is sufficient to produce the results we seek.
Which brings us to this apropos posting on the Internets pipes:
Who's your perfect candidate
As an aside, I think that even if one of us were the incumbent, we would disappoint ourselves, finding reasons to discover fault with a vote or to be disturbed by a trend in performance.
I believe that is a strength in both our system and in our personal characters. If the man or woman you most strongly believe in (as a candidate) ever becomes the "perfect" officeholder, it's time to reconsider your standards.
I have a favorite candidate in the 2008 elections who, from time to time, expresses campaign themes that cause me to shudder.
I'm not proposing that anyone compromise their principles when choosing a candidate. But to expect the "perfect" and ideal candidate/officeholder is unrealistic. I don't think we would actually want that candidate to win. In fact, if we ourselves were that candidate/officeholder, we would be wise to question our support if EVERY vote went precisely the way we wanted it.
All we can hope for is that the character of "our" candidate is sufficient to produce the results we seek.
Which brings us to this apropos posting on the Internets pipes:
Who's your perfect candidate
As an aside, I think that even if one of us were the incumbent, we would disappoint ourselves, finding reasons to discover fault with a vote or to be disturbed by a trend in performance.
I believe that is a strength in both our system and in our personal characters. If the man or woman you most strongly believe in (as a candidate) ever becomes the "perfect" officeholder, it's time to reconsider your standards.
I have a favorite candidate in the 2008 elections who, from time to time, expresses campaign themes that cause me to shudder.
I'm not proposing that anyone compromise their principles when choosing a candidate. But to expect the "perfect" and ideal candidate/officeholder is unrealistic. I don't think we would actually want that candidate to win. In fact, if we ourselves were that candidate/officeholder, we would be wise to question our support if EVERY vote went precisely the way we wanted it.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Safecracking
The story of my political history is not particularly boring. But, in most respects, it is of interest only to me and to those who love me. Still, I've shared some of my story before. Some readers have heard parts of it.
It is that history that informs my writing today.
As a much younger man, in a time when 18-year-olds had just been given the right to vote (and to drink, coincidentally, although I remained a teetotaler until I was nearly 21), I became quite heavily involved in politics as a youth chairman for a statewide campaign. In college, being naturally political, I was drawn further into the web of politics.
In many ways those were terribly exciting years. ALL of my education was aimed toward politics and public service. In politics I saw nobility expressed and I saw people destroyed. At a certain point, I recognized that my own involvement in politics threatened my soul. I measured myself and determined that I was unwilling to risk my soul in that game. I did not possess the maturity or the strength to resist its temptations. I did not enjoy the necessity of recalibrating my conscience every day, checking the lodestar of my own morality, and justifying what I could do with what I should do.
So I retired from the game. It's a retirement that has persisted to this day.
That does not mean that I ceased to care. It doesn't mean that I quit paying attention, stopped learning, or lost those political skills. I simply retired from the professional ranks to become an ardent amateur.
When I became a New Albanian, it became almost immediately important for me to learn the local political ropes. I wasn't, frankly, expecting to have to do so, but events required it. Out of necessity, then, I became the most inquisitive newcomer around. I asked questions about local and state government of anyone who would give me the time. And I paid attention. I put in the time, did my research, and sought to identify potential allies and prospective foes.
It was a little like cracking a safe. The ability to unlock the code requires painstaking attention. But ultimately, the tumblers fell and abracadabra, the doors to the safe began to open.
Of course, inside each safe is another safe. Cracking them all is neither possible nor sane. But neither is stopping the work an option.
Here, however, is where I differ from the prototypical safecracker. Unlike the criminal variety, I have no fear of discovery. I lack that fear because I'm not keeping secrets. When the door to the safe falls open, I begin to read what's inside - aloud.
Call me names. Despise me. But I won't stop cracking the safes. And I won't stop reading their contents aloud.
The reason this blog is public is to keep me honest. By "reading aloud," I expose my analysis to the light of day and if it is misguided or flat wrong, I expect you, the readers, to point out where my "translation" skills are weak. Hell, maybe I'm just so old that my eyes don't work anymore.
I'll keep reading aloud so that in New Albany, this maxim will hold true: Reading Allowed.
It is that history that informs my writing today.
As a much younger man, in a time when 18-year-olds had just been given the right to vote (and to drink, coincidentally, although I remained a teetotaler until I was nearly 21), I became quite heavily involved in politics as a youth chairman for a statewide campaign. In college, being naturally political, I was drawn further into the web of politics.
In many ways those were terribly exciting years. ALL of my education was aimed toward politics and public service. In politics I saw nobility expressed and I saw people destroyed. At a certain point, I recognized that my own involvement in politics threatened my soul. I measured myself and determined that I was unwilling to risk my soul in that game. I did not possess the maturity or the strength to resist its temptations. I did not enjoy the necessity of recalibrating my conscience every day, checking the lodestar of my own morality, and justifying what I could do with what I should do.
So I retired from the game. It's a retirement that has persisted to this day.
That does not mean that I ceased to care. It doesn't mean that I quit paying attention, stopped learning, or lost those political skills. I simply retired from the professional ranks to become an ardent amateur.
When I became a New Albanian, it became almost immediately important for me to learn the local political ropes. I wasn't, frankly, expecting to have to do so, but events required it. Out of necessity, then, I became the most inquisitive newcomer around. I asked questions about local and state government of anyone who would give me the time. And I paid attention. I put in the time, did my research, and sought to identify potential allies and prospective foes.
It was a little like cracking a safe. The ability to unlock the code requires painstaking attention. But ultimately, the tumblers fell and abracadabra, the doors to the safe began to open.
Of course, inside each safe is another safe. Cracking them all is neither possible nor sane. But neither is stopping the work an option.
Here, however, is where I differ from the prototypical safecracker. Unlike the criminal variety, I have no fear of discovery. I lack that fear because I'm not keeping secrets. When the door to the safe falls open, I begin to read what's inside - aloud.
Call me names. Despise me. But I won't stop cracking the safes. And I won't stop reading their contents aloud.
The reason this blog is public is to keep me honest. By "reading aloud," I expose my analysis to the light of day and if it is misguided or flat wrong, I expect you, the readers, to point out where my "translation" skills are weak. Hell, maybe I'm just so old that my eyes don't work anymore.
I'll keep reading aloud so that in New Albany, this maxim will hold true: Reading Allowed.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Gettin' Down in the Muck
Yes, New Albanians, the city council is once again obsessed with excrement.
Less than a month after the council showed wisdom in bringing to an end two pieces of litigation it was sure to lose, it officially reversed itself on one of them and thumbed its nose to the court and the opposing parties on the other.
The official reversal was the most serious of the Feb. 4 actions/inactions.
I've consulted with experts and attorneys about this litigation and not one seems to believe the council has a leg to stand on in this suit. Of course, this council has its own omniscient expert and an attorney willing to carry out his will, so Judge Cody will, despite clear signals to the council, be asked to consider the case of The Common Council for the City of New Albany vs. The Sewer Board of the City of New Albany AND The Common Council for the City of New Albany vs. The Stormwater Board of the City of New Albany.
Let's recap and then analyze this misbegotten "case."
Council members Gahan and Coffey, who've grown increasingly obsessed with the opportunity to pander politically on the manufactured issue of the "accountability" of the sewer and stormwater boards, and probably for other disparate reasons, motivated the previous council to file suit.
The excuse for spanking these boards was the granting of management contracts to EMC, the private contractor who managed sewer operations for the past five years. The relatively new stormwater board elected to execute a much smaller, but similar contract for operations management with EMC.
The sewer board contract with EMC contemplated an automatic renewal, at a higher price, provided that both parties agreed. This is important. There was no new contract under consideration, merely a continuation of the existing contract. The sewer board, due in no small part to the efforts of Kevin Zurschmiede, determined to renegotiate the contract and avoid the automatic renewal. The renegotiation resulted in a net savings to the sewer board and its ratepayers for the next five years.
The contract with EMC has been described legally as a "professional services contract." As such, it is not subject to the same procedures as contracts for goods and other services. If it is, and we believe it is, a professional services contract, there is little reason to challenge it and even less reason to believe that the city council can win in this litigation.
Imagine for a moment an indisputable professional services contract. Let's say, Jerry Ulrich's contract as the city council attorney. The council is surely entitled to make a subjective judgment that Ulrich has or has not done a good job in the past. They are surely entitled to determine whether his demeanor and attitude are convivial to their proceedings. Ulrich may or may not be the best lawyer for the job. He may or may not be the cheapest (or most expensive) lawyer available and willing to do the job. But no one (yet) has challenged the council's retention of Ulrich.
We'll concede that the EMC contract is of greater scale than the retention of a part-time council attorney. But engineering services and personnel management services are equally "professional" and have long been considered to be so important to the faithful execution of fiduciary duties that subjective evaluation trumps the "low-bidder" imperative the council seems to desire.
Does the council even have standing to have its suit go forward? Under current law and under current city ordinances, the sewer board is not beholden to the council. Although a majority of its membership is subject to appointment approval by the council, once appointed they are designed to be and obligated to be independent of the political whims of the council. Council has a narrowly defined role in sewer matters. Once the council has chosen to make its "enterprise" an independent utility, it should not and may not interfere in its operations. Yes, the council must approve most rate increases, but they are not entitled to micromanage the sewer board, whose members operate a utility that was always intended to pay for itself and to occasionally produce returns to the city's general fund.
The mere fact that Mr. Gahan became insulted by the previous board, the mere fact that Mr. Coffey deems himself an expert in myriad matters, does not justify tampering with this independence.
One cannot but speculate as to what favors and other compensations the council members may be seeking in trying to overturn what appears to be a favorable, and independently derived contract.
Is the council likely to prevail? No. The first question that will arise is whether the council has the right to sue the independent sewer board. Do they have standing, as the council, to challenge the actions of this independent board. We predict that Judge Cody will say no.
But then, suppose he grants them standing to challenge. Is the expense to the city, and the expense to the sewer utility's ratepayers, justifiable?
Most courts reject the concept of providing advisory opinions. Courts take on legitimate controversies and take them on only when they are "ripe." That the EMC contracts are professional services contracts is undisputed. The council seems to believe that the mere scale (in dollars) of the contracts make them somehow "special" and thus subject to challenge.
Finally, let's assume that Judge Cody grants the council standing to sue and that he declares the EMC contracts to not be "professional" services contracts exempt from the requirement to solicit bids and proposals and that the renegotiation of an existing contract triggers a requirement to expend $60,000 (according to Zurschmiede) to go through a bidding process.
Is it worth $30,000 to overturn a "good" contract? How about $60,000?
Why should Dan Coffey's private agenda cost this city tens of thousands of dollars? Why should New Albany residents and New Albany Sewer Board ratepayers shoulder the cost of this ego-driven conflict? To be a "test" case for the novel theory that independent utilities can and should be made dependent to their authorizing entities? To "test" the accepted law on what constitutes a professional services contract?
Mr. Caesar, Mr. Price, Mr. McLaughlin, Mrs. Benedetti, and Mr. Gonder need to shed the influence of the Coffey/Gahan axis. They need to consider whether their own curiosity ought to be satisfied at such great expense.
This was NOT done because counsel told them they had a good case. It WAS done because Mr. Coffey and Mr. Gahan successfully framed the question in such a way as to manipulate their colleagues into asking the wrong question. Mr. Ulrich is the council's hired gun and if they tell him to file suit, he will. When the question is put to a lawyer as "can you present a case," the answer will be "yes." When the question is put to a lawyer as "can you win a case," the answer may well be different.
But if you are willing to pay any price to have your case presented, don't expect your hired gun to say "no."
Sincerely, we invite your comments. The council is alleging that the sewer board executed an illegal contract. That's dubious. The motives are transparent. The ease with which the council executed an about-turn from its wise decision to drop the lawsuit casts doubt on their collective judgment.
And as for that other litigation they elected to put to an end, it should be noted that the council did not meet the court-ordered deadline for submitting a response to Judge Tinder's demand for a proper redistricting ordinance. No consent decree has been presented to the plaintiffs in that action, who now have 14 days to seek a default judgment against the city and the council.
Less than a month after the council showed wisdom in bringing to an end two pieces of litigation it was sure to lose, it officially reversed itself on one of them and thumbed its nose to the court and the opposing parties on the other.
The official reversal was the most serious of the Feb. 4 actions/inactions.
I've consulted with experts and attorneys about this litigation and not one seems to believe the council has a leg to stand on in this suit. Of course, this council has its own omniscient expert and an attorney willing to carry out his will, so Judge Cody will, despite clear signals to the council, be asked to consider the case of The Common Council for the City of New Albany vs. The Sewer Board of the City of New Albany AND The Common Council for the City of New Albany vs. The Stormwater Board of the City of New Albany.
Let's recap and then analyze this misbegotten "case."
Council members Gahan and Coffey, who've grown increasingly obsessed with the opportunity to pander politically on the manufactured issue of the "accountability" of the sewer and stormwater boards, and probably for other disparate reasons, motivated the previous council to file suit.
The excuse for spanking these boards was the granting of management contracts to EMC, the private contractor who managed sewer operations for the past five years. The relatively new stormwater board elected to execute a much smaller, but similar contract for operations management with EMC.
The sewer board contract with EMC contemplated an automatic renewal, at a higher price, provided that both parties agreed. This is important. There was no new contract under consideration, merely a continuation of the existing contract. The sewer board, due in no small part to the efforts of Kevin Zurschmiede, determined to renegotiate the contract and avoid the automatic renewal. The renegotiation resulted in a net savings to the sewer board and its ratepayers for the next five years.
The contract with EMC has been described legally as a "professional services contract." As such, it is not subject to the same procedures as contracts for goods and other services. If it is, and we believe it is, a professional services contract, there is little reason to challenge it and even less reason to believe that the city council can win in this litigation.
Imagine for a moment an indisputable professional services contract. Let's say, Jerry Ulrich's contract as the city council attorney. The council is surely entitled to make a subjective judgment that Ulrich has or has not done a good job in the past. They are surely entitled to determine whether his demeanor and attitude are convivial to their proceedings. Ulrich may or may not be the best lawyer for the job. He may or may not be the cheapest (or most expensive) lawyer available and willing to do the job. But no one (yet) has challenged the council's retention of Ulrich.
We'll concede that the EMC contract is of greater scale than the retention of a part-time council attorney. But engineering services and personnel management services are equally "professional" and have long been considered to be so important to the faithful execution of fiduciary duties that subjective evaluation trumps the "low-bidder" imperative the council seems to desire.
Does the council even have standing to have its suit go forward? Under current law and under current city ordinances, the sewer board is not beholden to the council. Although a majority of its membership is subject to appointment approval by the council, once appointed they are designed to be and obligated to be independent of the political whims of the council. Council has a narrowly defined role in sewer matters. Once the council has chosen to make its "enterprise" an independent utility, it should not and may not interfere in its operations. Yes, the council must approve most rate increases, but they are not entitled to micromanage the sewer board, whose members operate a utility that was always intended to pay for itself and to occasionally produce returns to the city's general fund.
The mere fact that Mr. Gahan became insulted by the previous board, the mere fact that Mr. Coffey deems himself an expert in myriad matters, does not justify tampering with this independence.
One cannot but speculate as to what favors and other compensations the council members may be seeking in trying to overturn what appears to be a favorable, and independently derived contract.
Is the council likely to prevail? No. The first question that will arise is whether the council has the right to sue the independent sewer board. Do they have standing, as the council, to challenge the actions of this independent board. We predict that Judge Cody will say no.
But then, suppose he grants them standing to challenge. Is the expense to the city, and the expense to the sewer utility's ratepayers, justifiable?
Most courts reject the concept of providing advisory opinions. Courts take on legitimate controversies and take them on only when they are "ripe." That the EMC contracts are professional services contracts is undisputed. The council seems to believe that the mere scale (in dollars) of the contracts make them somehow "special" and thus subject to challenge.
Finally, let's assume that Judge Cody grants the council standing to sue and that he declares the EMC contracts to not be "professional" services contracts exempt from the requirement to solicit bids and proposals and that the renegotiation of an existing contract triggers a requirement to expend $60,000 (according to Zurschmiede) to go through a bidding process.
Is it worth $30,000 to overturn a "good" contract? How about $60,000?
Why should Dan Coffey's private agenda cost this city tens of thousands of dollars? Why should New Albany residents and New Albany Sewer Board ratepayers shoulder the cost of this ego-driven conflict? To be a "test" case for the novel theory that independent utilities can and should be made dependent to their authorizing entities? To "test" the accepted law on what constitutes a professional services contract?
Mr. Caesar, Mr. Price, Mr. McLaughlin, Mrs. Benedetti, and Mr. Gonder need to shed the influence of the Coffey/Gahan axis. They need to consider whether their own curiosity ought to be satisfied at such great expense.
This was NOT done because counsel told them they had a good case. It WAS done because Mr. Coffey and Mr. Gahan successfully framed the question in such a way as to manipulate their colleagues into asking the wrong question. Mr. Ulrich is the council's hired gun and if they tell him to file suit, he will. When the question is put to a lawyer as "can you present a case," the answer will be "yes." When the question is put to a lawyer as "can you win a case," the answer may well be different.
But if you are willing to pay any price to have your case presented, don't expect your hired gun to say "no."
Sincerely, we invite your comments. The council is alleging that the sewer board executed an illegal contract. That's dubious. The motives are transparent. The ease with which the council executed an about-turn from its wise decision to drop the lawsuit casts doubt on their collective judgment.
And as for that other litigation they elected to put to an end, it should be noted that the council did not meet the court-ordered deadline for submitting a response to Judge Tinder's demand for a proper redistricting ordinance. No consent decree has been presented to the plaintiffs in that action, who now have 14 days to seek a default judgment against the city and the council.
A Mac Attack
The excuse first offered by D5 Diane McCartin-Benedetti of "I was confused" may well be growing epidemic.
D4 Pat McLaughlin tabled or deferred consideration Monday night on a tax abatement measure intended to give incentives to L&D Mail Masters for investment in a new property.
Deputy Mayor Carl Malysz, clearly in favor of the incentive, but not situated to insist on its consideration, offered to "school" Mr. McLaughlin (and other council members) on the broad outlines of the tax abatement process, its purposes, and its intended benefits. Realizing that the council had no intention of taking up the matter, he politely offered to meet with Mr. McLaughlin to answer any of his questions. President Gahan expanded that offer in later discussion by proposing a full-council work session on the subject.
My own concerns are two.
One: Isn't it a little late in the game to be "educating" yourself on the broad subject of tax abatements? Wouldn't a reasonable person have obtained that knowledge beforehand. As we understood it, Mr. Mac's confusion was unrelated to the specific request. It seemed clear that Mr. McLaughlin was coming to the whole concept of tax abatements as a new subject.
Two: We made the inference (wrongly, it turns out) that Mr. Malysz was offering a backroom skull session for one or more council members outside the view of the public. Yet, it is an important point to raise. Who says that a wide-ranging discussion of tax abatements should take place somewhere other than a public meeting? Why shouldn't the council as a whole debate and discuss the philosophical and practical underpinnings of tax abatements to aid in recruitment of new investment?
The council had previously determined that it would, as a rule, grant no more ten-year abatements - only five-year grants. This "decision" took place completely outside of public view. We're not saying any sunshine laws were broken. But such an important "decision" shouldn't be made in private, should it?
Mr. Malysz and the England administration should think carefully about what types of communications they make to (and with) council outside of the official council schedule. And council members shouldn't be permitted to plead "confusion" when a matter comes up before the council in public meetings. Hash it out. Ask your questions in public and get your answers in public.
With 8 Democrats seated, there sure seem to be some troubling anti-democratic tendencies.
D4 Pat McLaughlin tabled or deferred consideration Monday night on a tax abatement measure intended to give incentives to L&D Mail Masters for investment in a new property.
Deputy Mayor Carl Malysz, clearly in favor of the incentive, but not situated to insist on its consideration, offered to "school" Mr. McLaughlin (and other council members) on the broad outlines of the tax abatement process, its purposes, and its intended benefits. Realizing that the council had no intention of taking up the matter, he politely offered to meet with Mr. McLaughlin to answer any of his questions. President Gahan expanded that offer in later discussion by proposing a full-council work session on the subject.
My own concerns are two.
One: Isn't it a little late in the game to be "educating" yourself on the broad subject of tax abatements? Wouldn't a reasonable person have obtained that knowledge beforehand. As we understood it, Mr. Mac's confusion was unrelated to the specific request. It seemed clear that Mr. McLaughlin was coming to the whole concept of tax abatements as a new subject.
Two: We made the inference (wrongly, it turns out) that Mr. Malysz was offering a backroom skull session for one or more council members outside the view of the public. Yet, it is an important point to raise. Who says that a wide-ranging discussion of tax abatements should take place somewhere other than a public meeting? Why shouldn't the council as a whole debate and discuss the philosophical and practical underpinnings of tax abatements to aid in recruitment of new investment?
The council had previously determined that it would, as a rule, grant no more ten-year abatements - only five-year grants. This "decision" took place completely outside of public view. We're not saying any sunshine laws were broken. But such an important "decision" shouldn't be made in private, should it?
Mr. Malysz and the England administration should think carefully about what types of communications they make to (and with) council outside of the official council schedule. And council members shouldn't be permitted to plead "confusion" when a matter comes up before the council in public meetings. Hash it out. Ask your questions in public and get your answers in public.
With 8 Democrats seated, there sure seem to be some troubling anti-democratic tendencies.
The One-Member Veto
Several items from Monday's New Albany city council meeting deserve analysis. Yes, it was a short and relatively uncontroversial agenda (with one exception) and yes, it's still early in this council's tenure.
But it is becoming apparent that the paranoid style in American politics is taking its toll on the council. It's being used as a cudgel by the most experienced member, and it's swaying the votes of the least experienced.
For tonight, though, let's address just one tiny moment from that evening.
Pat McLaughlin, the representative for the old 4th District, was handed the duty of presenting an ordinance to grant L&D Mail Masters a tax abatement. It turns out that this particular type of abatement is authorized by new legislation and perhaps marks a first impression in New Albany.
Mr. Mac quashed the measure, stating that he wanted more time to learn about tax abatements. This has been the habit of past councils - to allow the nominal "sponsor" to defer or table discussion and debate, even if the only reason for it is that the presenting member doesn't understand what's going on.
Now, one could make the case that a member shouldn't let a vote proceed until he or she fully understands what is being considered. But why should the "sponsor" be allowed to, in essence, pocket an agendaed item.
"Sponsorship," as it is practiced twice a month in the third floor assembly room at Hauss Square, is a bit of a sham. The council president assigns these proposed ordinances and resolutions. The "sponsor" has little say in this. This practice offers up such anomalies as 3D Steve Price presenting dramatically progressive proposals and then arguing vigorously against them. It creates bizarro situations where members will simply refuse to bring an item forward for discussion. And finally, it can allow the most ill-prepared or inappropriate member to perform a pocket veto on a measure.
Yes, some tabled agenda items return to council. But in many cases (ordinance enforcement, for example), a hostile member designated as the nominal sponsor can bottle up legislation indefinitely.
Procedurally, this is ridiculous. If the council president can't find at least one member willing to present an item, why should it even appear on the agenda?
From time to time, the administration will put forward a piece of proposed legislation, only to discover that a hostile council will refuse to take it up.
Let's imagine a scenario sometime in the next four years. The board of directors of the city's sewer utility determines a need for a rate increase. Such a development wouldn't ordinarily be considered inimical to the city. Prices rise every year on everything. Gradual rate increases are easier to deal with than massive once-a-decade increases.
So in this scenario, imagine Jeff Gahan naming Steve Price as the sponsor of the ordinance approving such a rate hike. Can Price, who's committed to drowning all government services in the bathtub, simply table the ordinance. It seems he can.
We've yet to see a member call for a vote on these measures to "table" an ordinance. We've yet to see a member ask for a vote to overrule the ruling of the chair.
Do New Albany's ordinances and council procedures actually permit a single member to bottle up legislation because he or she is unprepared, confused, or opposed to a measure?
But it is becoming apparent that the paranoid style in American politics is taking its toll on the council. It's being used as a cudgel by the most experienced member, and it's swaying the votes of the least experienced.
For tonight, though, let's address just one tiny moment from that evening.
Pat McLaughlin, the representative for the old 4th District, was handed the duty of presenting an ordinance to grant L&D Mail Masters a tax abatement. It turns out that this particular type of abatement is authorized by new legislation and perhaps marks a first impression in New Albany.
Mr. Mac quashed the measure, stating that he wanted more time to learn about tax abatements. This has been the habit of past councils - to allow the nominal "sponsor" to defer or table discussion and debate, even if the only reason for it is that the presenting member doesn't understand what's going on.
Now, one could make the case that a member shouldn't let a vote proceed until he or she fully understands what is being considered. But why should the "sponsor" be allowed to, in essence, pocket an agendaed item.
"Sponsorship," as it is practiced twice a month in the third floor assembly room at Hauss Square, is a bit of a sham. The council president assigns these proposed ordinances and resolutions. The "sponsor" has little say in this. This practice offers up such anomalies as 3D Steve Price presenting dramatically progressive proposals and then arguing vigorously against them. It creates bizarro situations where members will simply refuse to bring an item forward for discussion. And finally, it can allow the most ill-prepared or inappropriate member to perform a pocket veto on a measure.
Yes, some tabled agenda items return to council. But in many cases (ordinance enforcement, for example), a hostile member designated as the nominal sponsor can bottle up legislation indefinitely.
Procedurally, this is ridiculous. If the council president can't find at least one member willing to present an item, why should it even appear on the agenda?
From time to time, the administration will put forward a piece of proposed legislation, only to discover that a hostile council will refuse to take it up.
Let's imagine a scenario sometime in the next four years. The board of directors of the city's sewer utility determines a need for a rate increase. Such a development wouldn't ordinarily be considered inimical to the city. Prices rise every year on everything. Gradual rate increases are easier to deal with than massive once-a-decade increases.
So in this scenario, imagine Jeff Gahan naming Steve Price as the sponsor of the ordinance approving such a rate hike. Can Price, who's committed to drowning all government services in the bathtub, simply table the ordinance. It seems he can.
We've yet to see a member call for a vote on these measures to "table" an ordinance. We've yet to see a member ask for a vote to overrule the ruling of the chair.
Do New Albany's ordinances and council procedures actually permit a single member to bottle up legislation because he or she is unprepared, confused, or opposed to a measure?
Friday, February 1, 2008
We and Our Shadows...
It's February 1. The New Albany city council has met three times and taken some rather far-reaching actions already. Some of these are encouraging. Some are disturbing.
So where are the shadows we need to adequately monitor the performance of our elected representatives?
Now is the time to begin consistently monitoring how your representatives are voting. Now, when the sheer volume of votes on ordinances and resolutions is low. Now, when the news reports are fresh. Now, when the issues are at their hottest.
The cause of good and accountable government is ill-served by a retrospective look at the issues in the months preceding the next city election. It is in the context of the time that a member's votes must be evaluated.
We've been asked if the purpose of this blog is to fuel a 2011 campaign. Well, yes and no. No one would be happier than this blogger to be able to report after four years that the member representing the old district 5 had been visionary, capable, and accountable. But should she and her colleagues fail to deliver, 2011 will be critical, and this blog will serve as a record of performance.
It would be foolish to think that Diane McCartin-Benedetti will run unopposed in 2011. The geography of the new council districts might create two "incumbents." The opposing party will surely offer an alternative. Another Democrat may step up to challenge D5...or even an independent, a third-party, or a write-in candidate.
Those identities are irrelevant to the purpose of this blog. Whoever challenges the incumbent will need to know the record. And Mrs. Benedetti should welcome the scrutiny. She will undoubtedly be proud to defend her record of performance. She may not welcome the analysis, but the record itself is not one she will run away from. I don't think.
The key question today is this: who will step up to monitor, record, and analyze the performance of the other eight council members? We've previously invited like-minded watchdogs to join NA Shadow Council. We have eight members who need watching.
Who will step up?
Send an e-mail to "shadowna5(at)gmail(dot)com" and we can create direct posting privileges for you. Why don't you become shadow3? or shadow6?
For the record (cut and paste this for future reference), here are the nine individuals serving on the 2008-2012 council:
District 1 - Dan Coffey (third term) Democrat
District 2 - Bob Caesar (first) Democrat
District 3 - Steve Price (second) Democrat
District 4 - Pat McLaughlin (first) Democrat
District 5 - Diane McCartin-Benedetti (first) Democrat
District 6 - Jeff Gahan (second) Democrat
At-Large - Jack Messer (second) Democrat
At-Large - John Gonder (first) Democrat
At-Large - Kevin Zurschmiede (second) Republican
You need not reside in the district to be a shadow. As of the moment, no one knows who lives in what 2011 district. But you will be performing an invaluable service to your community while educating yourself on the issues. Come on and "stroll" down the avenue with us.
So where are the shadows we need to adequately monitor the performance of our elected representatives?
Now is the time to begin consistently monitoring how your representatives are voting. Now, when the sheer volume of votes on ordinances and resolutions is low. Now, when the news reports are fresh. Now, when the issues are at their hottest.
The cause of good and accountable government is ill-served by a retrospective look at the issues in the months preceding the next city election. It is in the context of the time that a member's votes must be evaluated.
We've been asked if the purpose of this blog is to fuel a 2011 campaign. Well, yes and no. No one would be happier than this blogger to be able to report after four years that the member representing the old district 5 had been visionary, capable, and accountable. But should she and her colleagues fail to deliver, 2011 will be critical, and this blog will serve as a record of performance.
It would be foolish to think that Diane McCartin-Benedetti will run unopposed in 2011. The geography of the new council districts might create two "incumbents." The opposing party will surely offer an alternative. Another Democrat may step up to challenge D5...or even an independent, a third-party, or a write-in candidate.
Those identities are irrelevant to the purpose of this blog. Whoever challenges the incumbent will need to know the record. And Mrs. Benedetti should welcome the scrutiny. She will undoubtedly be proud to defend her record of performance. She may not welcome the analysis, but the record itself is not one she will run away from. I don't think.
The key question today is this: who will step up to monitor, record, and analyze the performance of the other eight council members? We've previously invited like-minded watchdogs to join NA Shadow Council. We have eight members who need watching.
Who will step up?
Send an e-mail to "shadowna5(at)gmail(dot)com" and we can create direct posting privileges for you. Why don't you become shadow3? or shadow6?
For the record (cut and paste this for future reference), here are the nine individuals serving on the 2008-2012 council:
District 1 - Dan Coffey (third term) Democrat
District 2 - Bob Caesar (first) Democrat
District 3 - Steve Price (second) Democrat
District 4 - Pat McLaughlin (first) Democrat
District 5 - Diane McCartin-Benedetti (first) Democrat
District 6 - Jeff Gahan (second) Democrat
At-Large - Jack Messer (second) Democrat
At-Large - John Gonder (first) Democrat
At-Large - Kevin Zurschmiede (second) Republican
You need not reside in the district to be a shadow. As of the moment, no one knows who lives in what 2011 district. But you will be performing an invaluable service to your community while educating yourself on the issues. Come on and "stroll" down the avenue with us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)