Our spouse contends it's inappropriate to call him "Mayor 54," especially when you have no idea what number he is (do you?), but then the boomer pop-cultural reference doesn't play as well when you title your blog post "Mayor 36 where are you?"
Regardless, the point is made. It is time for the Hon. Douglas B. England to shed his imperial mayoralty once and for all.
During his current term, England has been conspicuously absent from the meetings of New Albany's legislative body. In and of itself, that's not completely inappropriate. The mayor's job is unique. So is the council's. In ordinary circumstances, there's no particular reason for the mayor to intrude himself or his personality into the nine-member mix of council business.
But these are not ordinary circumstances.
One could make the case that shadow5 shouldn't even be making comments in the bloody aftermath of Thursday's city council meeting. After all, corporeal5, Diane McCartin Benedetti (memorably called Mrs. McCartin at last evening's convocation) was not in attendance. Her shadow, then, should just shut up, right?
Sorry, the shadow don't swing that way. We kept our traps shut after last week's signal meeting. We can't skip a whole month - not with all the drama afoot on the third floor.
So...tonight's dilemma is whether to report on what happened or to analyze what it means.
(30 minutes elapse)
Can't separate them. There's an inclination to say to our readers "Come to the meetings if you want to know what's going on," but we weren't raised that way. So, what the hey (an expression our friends used, and one our dear mother abhorred as "trashy).
At the end of May's first council meeting, we told one attendee that they had just sat through the most important meeting ever. It wasn't so much the actions of the council that Monday night, but the portents, the mood, and what could be inferred from it.
Last night's meeting proved, irrevocably, that the honeymoon is over. The always polite but ever passive aggressive Mr. Gahan presided over what could only be called an attempted coup, led, of course, by Sir Dan, but concurred in by all eight of the knights of the squared tables.
Those reading the tea leaves saw confirmation that the mayor-council honeymoon had ended when deputy mayor Carl Malysz was instructed to address any remarks to the council during the period designated as communication from city officials.
Heretofore, Mr. Malysz had been accorded last innings, during the period designated as communications from the mayor. Meticulously, Malysz always prefaced his remarks as being on behalf of the mayor, often including a diplomatic reason why the mayor could not be bothered to attend the meeting.
Assertiveness is often a trait to be praised, but when that assertiveness is so bare-faced, and yet put forward disingenuously and as if we were to believe it were organic, and not calculated, it can be judged as either ludicrous or nauseating. We chose chuckles and muted gasps. Others might reasonably have retched. Nonetheless, the entertainment is back at Hauss Square.
"Mayor 54" needs to know the jig is up. He can no longer send functionaries to do his bidding. He can no longer keep his lapels clean unless he's willing to see an independent council running amok. These few months of amity have come to an end and the illusion of a well-oiled (too well, for our tastes) machine has gone "poof."
Good for corporeal5. She picked a great night to absent herself. Not to paint the whole council with the same brush, but with what took place Thursday, it might be convenient for C5 to say "I wasn't there."
The admirable Mr. Caesar, representative of the old 2nd District, launched the first fireworks of the evening obliquely, making one of this week's notable events his cause celebre.
Observant readers of Tuesday's Tribune will have noted that New Albany's Board of Public Works and Safety experienced a change of rider in midrace. Deputy director of operations Matt Dennison was deposed as chairman of the board. In the two days following, speculation was rampant about the reasons. The deposed Dennison was not in attendance Thursday, but the council was in high dudgeon about his dismissal from the post.
Mr. Caesar praised Dennison for the way he had been conducting himself in the post and for his accessibility and helpfulness, and urged the council toward an informal resolution of commendation for young Matt. Other members concurred.
Who replaced Dennison? Why, Mr. Malysz, of course, the same Mr. Malysz who was next up in the line of speakers. Speaking, of course, on behalf of the mayor, but without his previously preferred place on the agenda, the deputy mayor acknowledged the sentiment of the council and promised to pass that on to His Honor. He assured the council that the change was perfectly innocuous, that the mayor had asked him to assume the responsibility, that he and Matt had discussed it, and that the changeover had been accomplished amicably. He told the assembly that it was in no way a "purge." To which the courtly Sir Dan replied, "We never said it was (a purge). Maybe it was in your mind, but we didn't say that."
Now, we know we are supposed to believe that Mr. Malysz took no offense. The man is nothing if not diplomatic, and his ability to press on in the face of insult and hostility is remarkable. Of course, we are also supposed to believe that Mr. Dennison's replacement was routine and without any hint of controversy. The hubbub around town over the last 48 hours was supposed to be ignored.
Mr. Malysz knew nothing (we are meant to believe) of what was coming next.
As the mayor was (again) absent, in the tradition of laissez faire, the next item on the agenda was the purely ministerial council function of confirming that New Albany desires to participate in the nation's revenue-sharing program known as CDBG, or CBGB, or whatever, whereby federal taxes are returned to cities for targeted improvements. This no-brainer resolution, which requires only the council's assent and confirmation that New Albany wants its piece of the pie, was tabled by Sir Dan.
(Note: Mr. Malysz's legend and reputation in Indiana is as the master of garnering grants and other federal monies.)
(Note 2: 3D Steve Price is the only council member on recent record as having voted "no" on accepting CDBG block grants for community development. After the most recent elections, Mr. Price is no longer the "Dopey" of the council's dwarfs, but he firmly held that title in his previous term.)
Mr. Coffey, who with corporeal5 serves on the Redevelopment Commission and is and was fully conversant with every particular of the participation letter and its accompanying wish list, decided that this would be the night he threw a wrench into the works.
After months of commission meetings and two public hearings, and after the council had a full weekend and four weekdays to review the wish list and participation letter, Coffey decided that May 15 would be the day he made his "stand" against the mayor, his deputy, and the administration. Not to mention "common sense."
Understand, please, that the "wish list" that accompanies the letter to federal officials contains no priorities and no commitments. If we were to go to the public hearing and advocate for, say, community gardens, that would go on the list of projects that might be funded by CDBG money. It's not particularly complicated. Actual expenditures are prospective. The RC must vote to expend the money. The letter (and council affirmation resolution) merely define the parameters of what the money might be spent on in the coming fiscal year 2009.
Sir Dan, the knight currently representing the old 1st District, decided this would be his "slapdown" moment, his moment to wield his sword in defense of...something.
By tabling the resolution (and be assured, Mr. Gahan made it clear he joined heartily in the slapdown, and be further assured that no other council member was motivated to exercise parliamentary prerogatives to move the measure), Mr. Coffey forces the administration to write a Friday letter explaining precisely why New Albany will not be complying with federal requirements to affirm its participation in the Community Development Block Grant Program.
Now, Malysz concedes that New Albany will not be given the death penalty for failing to meet the deadline (Friday, May 16) for submitting its "letter of intent." But who is to say, given the lamentable state of the U.S. dollar and the gargantuan budget deficit, that New Albany will now be last in line for disbursements. After all, all that was needed was a routine confession that New Albany, through its legislative body, wished to partake of the federal revenue sharing.
Why would Sir Dan do this? To make a point, to take a stand, to, in his own words, "draw the line." Hey, Dougie Boy, quit playing us for suckahs! We (and remember, this wasn't just Sir Dan, but the whole council being passive aggressive) won't stand for being presented with continuous "must-pass" legislation.
To be sure, this blogger has cogitated furiously over the remarkably rushed agenda of the 2008 council. 2008 has seen about a dozen furiously rushed votes that simply had to be passed in one meeting, with little discussion. The administration has discouraged deliberation and the council has been, for the most part, acquiescent in rushing forward legislation that the administration insisted must be passed "tonight."
(Note: Mr. Price's extortionate "giveback" fee for tax abatements was rushed through last night, without discussion, public notice, or any particulars [and illegally, in this observer's opinion], accompanied by Mr. Gahan's plaudits for the "quick" turnaround. Can anyone tell us what the giveback is? Not once in public has the council delineated what the fee might be.)
But last night's showdown was the worst possible occasion to assert the council's power. It was a frivolous gesture that may well be noted as this council's lowest moment. In a puerile attempt to embarrass Mr. Malysz, and by extension, Mr. England, Sir Dan may have forfeited hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal largesse.
Mr. Coffey, sensing an opportunity to grab the spotlight, purported to be solicitous of the council's prerogatives to deliberate over the multitude of possible projects that might be funded by CDBG money. In spite of the fact that the council had multitudinous opportunities to study and participate in this annual venture, in spite of the fact that this council had six days to review a long process and final document, Coffey successfully squelched approval. In fact, the requested formal assent to the letter had zero substantive effect on which projects might be funded with this federal money. Coffey decided that May 15 was the appropriate time to punch Doug England in the snout. Mr. Mayor: Lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas!
Mr. Mayor: If you wish to accomplish your stated goals and if you are sincere, you must abandon your imperial mayoralty. You need to break a sweat, attend the council meetings, and advocate personally for your initiatives. As a respected, but unelected functionary, Mr. Malysz can no longer wield your scepter. The council has spoken, as they are entitled to. Whether their actions are wise or frivolous, your disconnection from council cannot continue if you hope to be an effective mayor.
Shadow5 has little idea what personal and private advocacy you are engaged in. But in the sunshine of public meetings, your strategy has run its course. This council, for better or worse, has cast down the gauntlet and is calling you out. The England administration can no longer treat the council as a rubber stamp. The honeymoon is over. Weeks before we predicted it, Sir Dan has reverted to demagogic form, and King Jeffrey is backing his play.
Oh. And the Mount Tabor Road pawnshop rezoning was rejected. Next!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
There is, to be sure, one alternative to the mayor personally attending city council meetings.
Mr. England could submit letters to the council. City Clerk Marcey Wisman could read those messages (written by Mr. Malysz) into the record.
Aeyunh.
The passage of the tax abatement "giveback" is actually a good thing and the committee working on it did have public work sessions and allow public comment.
It raises the tax abatement application fees to a point that they actually cover the cost of staff hours spent processing them. It also requires that those who receive tax abatements repay 10% of their savings to the city.
If properly utilized, the 10% will constitute a mechanism to create incentives not covered under the state's arcane abatement methodologies, which are very narrowly aimed at manufacturing and related businesses, much to our detriment as we face 21st century realities.
It's difficult to express how incredibly treasonous Coffey's CDBG stance is. Those block grants are the only dedicated redevelopment dollars we have. To be clear, sidewalk and street improvements, low income and elderly housing repair, the new code enforcement inspector, and first-time home buyer assistance, among many other community enahncement projects, will not happen without those dollars.
What Dan and the silent majority did sends a message to the federal government that we don't want those things even if the feds are willing to pay for them, essentially announcing that we'd prefer that they send the federal taxes they've collected from us to some other community.
The situation may be salvageable but city staff, some of whom are paid with that same CDBG money so that their work costs the city budget nothing, will now have to spend valuable time trying to convince compliance officers that we really do want what was already ours, regardless of Coffey's ignorant attempt to give it away.
Over the years, it's very likely that more of that money has been spent in Coffey's district than anywhere else. He effectively sold out his constituents and the entire community to temporarily serve his own ego.
There is currently no greater obstacle to city improvement than Dan Coffey. To afford him any respect at all is nothing short of charity.
Although it was not made clear in the main post, we agree with bluegill that the referenced tax abatement "giveback" is a good thing.
Attendees at the first reading of the ordinance will note that the committee chair said the ordinance would be changed during the interim between first reading and final passage. The official council docket packet contained no revisions, and yet Mr. Gahan clearly implied that changes had been made to the ordinance.
Not one word about the substance of the legislation, no particulars, were shared with the public last evening. We contend that the ordinance, then, was illegal, hearings or not. When someone can go back in time and present me with an final draft or demonstrate that the original submission remained unchanged, I'll withdraw my objection.
This council is skating on the edge of a severe rebuke from the public access counselor. They have conducted public business in private on more than one occasion, casting doubt on the legitimacy of any claim to being open to public scrutiny.
You are correct, of course, that I was unaware of proposed changes. The ordinance posted on the city clerk's site as part of the council packet seems to have older fee levels marked out and new ones added.
Is that different than what they voted on or could you tell? Either way, I agree that any changes between readings should be publicly discussed and documented.
In fact, I think ordinances should be read aloud in general, as it's sometimes difficult to tell exactly what's being voted on. If it weren't for the city clerk's efforts to put information online, we often wouldn't know at all.
I'm still struggling with the concept that Coffey needlessly put our participation in the CDBG program at risk, no matter how small, and other council members didn't move to stop it. That's huge.
Did anyone speak up at all?
How many times have many of us warned the administration and council members about dealing with Coffey as if he could be decent enough to be trusted?
As a fellow traveler opined today, now would be a great time to say "I told you so" if the whole situation wasn't so sad.
"Did anyone speak up at all?"
From the Council? Not that I remember. It was basically over in the bat of an eye.
Of course, by this point in the meeting, the chance for public participation was long gone. Not that it would do a lot of good, since it would be after voting, I have thought about just regularly signing up for the non agenda public participation at the end of the meeting. That way I could at least throw my 2 cents in about what transpired during the meeting. Perhaps, in my case, it would just be 1 cent. Whatever.
From the Council? Not that I remember. It was basically over in the bat of an eye.
That's terribly irresponsible, especially given that open sessions have been available for the council to have input. If we lose that funding for any reason, the city will have no redevelopment money at all.
I hope the redevelopment commission is talking with their attorney.
Fundamentally, this council majority and this council president don't have any respect for public participation. They don't understand why anyone cares about what they do, but if they did understand, it wouldn't change things - because, after all, they were elected, not the public.
Gahan's council acts like a board of deacons, believing that their ordination makes them very special and superior to their congregation. I guess that makes the mayor the senior pastor, whose job it is to do what the deacons tell him to do.
The at-large members seem to understand that public participation helps to make them better council members. Quite a few of the others see public interest as a threat.
I consider myself to be fairly able to understand what's going on, having learned the Latin, so to speak. I do pay attention and managed to get a copy of the agenda early on Thursday. The ordinance that passed regarding property tax abatement fees was not made available for public inspection and if it was revised from the first reading, it was slipped through without discussion or elaboration.
bluegill's suggestion that all ordinances and resolutions be read aloud has tremendous merit. Now, which council member will insist that it be done?
How about this? All pending legislation will be posted in the meeting room and or copies will be made available to all.
Instead of holding church, members can read each piece of legislation. Then the president can invite the public to comment. Then the council can discuss it while making it clear that public comment will only be cut off when the question is called.
That would make for better legislation and greater transparency.
While it was a committee meeting and not a Council meeting, I do give a thumbs up to Steve Price for looking at the few of us citizens in attendance, squarely in our collective eye, and inviting our participation. He then followed through and allowed us to participate.
I often pick on Mr. Price but strive to be fair. He did an excellent job, in this respect.
Randy welcome to the world of the NA politicos at their best. For those of you who bought back into what Mayor England promised you, he has done what he did in his previous tenure. If you did not live here back then, do your homework. It is business as usual.
LOL
Post a Comment