Maybe you don't care. So be it. But if you do...
We were present at the premier campaign event of the 2007 mayoral campaign, the serial debate between the mayoral candidates of each primary party. Other witnesses will attest in affirmation that our current mayor voluntarily expressed his intention to make two-way streets in the downtown area his No. 1 priority.
We take campaign promises seriously here at NA Shadow Council.
With the exception of the prescient purchase of the Baptist Tabernacle on 4th Street, and the possible survival of the workplace smoking ban, we can't identify an appreciable accomplishment by this administration from January to date. Forgive us...the intensive yard-waste cleanup of July-August is appreciated. Thanks, Mickey.
In the meantime, with global warming intensifying, we have streets that need mowing, God forbid. The code enforcement officer is barred from enforcing city ordinances at commercial properties, leading to at least one "Felix Unger" to community standards and basic health standards.
We're waiting. Is this England incarnation "more of the same," or is it truly an administration that seeks to make us proud?
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
No Council Member Left Behind
We're not fans of the NCLB Act so rigidly administered by our anti-education President, but in the spirit of the Bush era and in honor of the start of the new school year, let's evaluate the performance of District 5's self-declared Democrat Diane McCartin-Benedetti, perhaps the only person remaining in the 21st Century who still bears a grudge against Muhammad Ali, for her first 8 months of service.
We understand that D5 has enlisted at least one lobbyist to advocate for "easy grading," but we aren't prepared to relegate DMB to the short bus just yet. She should, for the time being at least, despite the urgings of the her "press" agent, be evaluated on the same basis as we would evaluate the rest of her colleagues.
Mrs. Benedetti may well be a nice person. We don't have any objective evidence to the contrary. So this interim "grading" has nothing to do with her personality. Rather, it is about her performance, as demonstrated in her votes and her contributions to city council debate.
When the shadow began this blog, one aspect of the reportage was intended to be a vote by vote comparison. This is not that. Considering that this has been a passive legislative year and that the current council hasn't even passed a budget, the data set is too small to be meaningful, although it is fair to say that the simulated voting record of S5 diverges from that of D5.
We aren't, today, evaluating the strengths or weaknesses of the reasoning demonstrated in debate, either. Suffice it to say that it is not the member's strong point.
So how can we best evaluate the council member?
It's our blog, so we've chosen to use one of Thursday night's invisible votes, an appropriations ordinance sponsored by Mrs. McCartin-Benedetti.
It went unnoticed because the room emptied out promptly after the passage of the "New Albany Smoke-Free Air Act." (By the way, so long everybody. We'll be watching the real work of the council on your behalf while you go back to ignoring it.)
The ordinance proposed is styled "A-08-05," and appropriates $250,000 from the city's "Riverboat" fund for less than specific purposes. The council engaged in serious debate, albeit in the presence of a precious few observers. Whether all or just a portion of the appropriation is ultimately spent, it represents a non-budgeted expenditure and requires both council passage on three readings, but also a sign-off from the state DLGF. Because it is supplemental, it takes significantly longer to "deliver" the money into the controller's...er...control.
A principled debate ensued, led, remarkably, by Mr. Price (D3, no discernable party affiliation). While the administration and the council have definite plans for the expenditure of $60K of that money, the remaining $190K is being appropriated with no certain intention.
Although the ordinance passed on first reading, it passed only narrowly. And though the debate was brief, and though the inevitable grandstandng was delivered from the usual suspects, it was actually promising and revealing.
What it revealed about D5 is something we'd suspected, but only now feel comfortable in reporting.
Mrs. B has been co-opted. Whatever it is that the administration has planned for this money, Diane McCartin-Benedetti is their agent in place on the council. We understand that D5 is working hard to educate herself about the job she finds herself elected to. We further understand that she is a frequent "student" at the knee of city controller Kay Garry.
We also believe she has unwittingly (a bad quality in a sovereignly elected official) become a pawn in another edition of New Albany's complex and opaque game of "cups and balls."
That is the behind-the-scenes legerdemain of magically "finding" funds to further the administration's aims whether the council is aware of it or not.
Make no mistake, the brief debate on this supplemental appropriation was remarkable. Gonder, Gahan, Price, and Coffey objected to the "blank check" approach. Messer, Caesar, McLaughlin, Zurschmiede, and D5 saw no problem with it.
I suspect that each had a different reason for supporting or opposing the request on first reading. Some were asserting a prerogative and using a procedural argument to say "we won't make it easy" for the mayor. It was, in a sense, a way to say "don't keep us in the dark." Of course, Price is locked into a permanent, unreasoning "no on spending" stance, but the other three "nay" votes clearly had a pointed reason for voting that way.
Mrs. B was unable and unwilling to give any argument for why she put the measure forward; nor would she justify it; neither would she consent to an amendment in the amount.
We surmise, with confidence, that D5 has so fallen under the influence of her mentor, Mrs. Garry, that if Kay (who, remember, works for the mayor) says this is the way to do it, Diane does it.
That's simply unacceptable in an independently elected representative. You can't blame Mrs. Garry. You can't blame Doug England or Carl Malysz. But you can, and we will, blame D5 for uncritically forwarding what can be called a "fast break" and then being unable or unwilling to defend it.
Diane McCartin-Benedetti has shown no progress during her eight-month tenure. While social promotion may be tenable for some other council members, D5, for the good of the city, for the good of the 5th District, and for her own good, should be held back, and pending improvement or lack thereof over the next four months, could be considered for assignment to the special ed class along with D3 Mr. Price.
What delays this assignment is the earnest, if less than astute "hiring" by D5 of a press agent. It shows a certain amount of cunning and understanding on her part. Unfortunately for her, exposing her lapses in performance is not the exclusive purview of the papers.
Here's one way for D5 to advance to the next level: Introduce and fight for an ordinance that draws equal legislative districts. And introduce it NOW. It is, inarguably, a duty mandated by the legislature (not to mention The Constitution of the United States), an integral part of her sworn oath of office, and an act that if declined, constitutes statutory failure to perform the duties of office, forfeiture of office and remuneration therefor.
We understand that D5 has enlisted at least one lobbyist to advocate for "easy grading," but we aren't prepared to relegate DMB to the short bus just yet. She should, for the time being at least, despite the urgings of the her "press" agent, be evaluated on the same basis as we would evaluate the rest of her colleagues.
Mrs. Benedetti may well be a nice person. We don't have any objective evidence to the contrary. So this interim "grading" has nothing to do with her personality. Rather, it is about her performance, as demonstrated in her votes and her contributions to city council debate.
When the shadow began this blog, one aspect of the reportage was intended to be a vote by vote comparison. This is not that. Considering that this has been a passive legislative year and that the current council hasn't even passed a budget, the data set is too small to be meaningful, although it is fair to say that the simulated voting record of S5 diverges from that of D5.
We aren't, today, evaluating the strengths or weaknesses of the reasoning demonstrated in debate, either. Suffice it to say that it is not the member's strong point.
So how can we best evaluate the council member?
It's our blog, so we've chosen to use one of Thursday night's invisible votes, an appropriations ordinance sponsored by Mrs. McCartin-Benedetti.
It went unnoticed because the room emptied out promptly after the passage of the "New Albany Smoke-Free Air Act." (By the way, so long everybody. We'll be watching the real work of the council on your behalf while you go back to ignoring it.)
The ordinance proposed is styled "A-08-05," and appropriates $250,000 from the city's "Riverboat" fund for less than specific purposes. The council engaged in serious debate, albeit in the presence of a precious few observers. Whether all or just a portion of the appropriation is ultimately spent, it represents a non-budgeted expenditure and requires both council passage on three readings, but also a sign-off from the state DLGF. Because it is supplemental, it takes significantly longer to "deliver" the money into the controller's...er...control.
A principled debate ensued, led, remarkably, by Mr. Price (D3, no discernable party affiliation). While the administration and the council have definite plans for the expenditure of $60K of that money, the remaining $190K is being appropriated with no certain intention.
Although the ordinance passed on first reading, it passed only narrowly. And though the debate was brief, and though the inevitable grandstandng was delivered from the usual suspects, it was actually promising and revealing.
What it revealed about D5 is something we'd suspected, but only now feel comfortable in reporting.
Mrs. B has been co-opted. Whatever it is that the administration has planned for this money, Diane McCartin-Benedetti is their agent in place on the council. We understand that D5 is working hard to educate herself about the job she finds herself elected to. We further understand that she is a frequent "student" at the knee of city controller Kay Garry.
We also believe she has unwittingly (a bad quality in a sovereignly elected official) become a pawn in another edition of New Albany's complex and opaque game of "cups and balls."
That is the behind-the-scenes legerdemain of magically "finding" funds to further the administration's aims whether the council is aware of it or not.
Make no mistake, the brief debate on this supplemental appropriation was remarkable. Gonder, Gahan, Price, and Coffey objected to the "blank check" approach. Messer, Caesar, McLaughlin, Zurschmiede, and D5 saw no problem with it.
I suspect that each had a different reason for supporting or opposing the request on first reading. Some were asserting a prerogative and using a procedural argument to say "we won't make it easy" for the mayor. It was, in a sense, a way to say "don't keep us in the dark." Of course, Price is locked into a permanent, unreasoning "no on spending" stance, but the other three "nay" votes clearly had a pointed reason for voting that way.
Mrs. B was unable and unwilling to give any argument for why she put the measure forward; nor would she justify it; neither would she consent to an amendment in the amount.
We surmise, with confidence, that D5 has so fallen under the influence of her mentor, Mrs. Garry, that if Kay (who, remember, works for the mayor) says this is the way to do it, Diane does it.
That's simply unacceptable in an independently elected representative. You can't blame Mrs. Garry. You can't blame Doug England or Carl Malysz. But you can, and we will, blame D5 for uncritically forwarding what can be called a "fast break" and then being unable or unwilling to defend it.
Diane McCartin-Benedetti has shown no progress during her eight-month tenure. While social promotion may be tenable for some other council members, D5, for the good of the city, for the good of the 5th District, and for her own good, should be held back, and pending improvement or lack thereof over the next four months, could be considered for assignment to the special ed class along with D3 Mr. Price.
What delays this assignment is the earnest, if less than astute "hiring" by D5 of a press agent. It shows a certain amount of cunning and understanding on her part. Unfortunately for her, exposing her lapses in performance is not the exclusive purview of the papers.
Here's one way for D5 to advance to the next level: Introduce and fight for an ordinance that draws equal legislative districts. And introduce it NOW. It is, inarguably, a duty mandated by the legislature (not to mention The Constitution of the United States), an integral part of her sworn oath of office, and an act that if declined, constitutes statutory failure to perform the duties of office, forfeiture of office and remuneration therefor.
Roger Baylor for President?
Apparently, Roger's temerity in challenging the gavel of Jeff Gahan has generated a groundswell of netroots support in less than 24 hours. View this news report.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Surrealism on the Ohio
Hard to believe it has been more than two weeks since we posted here. In some respects, the laxity was generated by statements confided in us that we determined were not fodder for blogging. Although these confidences inform our understanding, we believe it would be imprudent to relate them here.
We told a gathering today that we believed that the end of the world was a provable fact...and that New Albany was simply a test market.
We (by this I mean those masochist idealists who continue to use the bi-monthly city council meetings the way the Polar Bear Society uses Lake Michigan in January) will, assuredly, witness the zeroth degree of shame demonstrated by the council on this coming evening. Enormous energies will be expended, perhaps to no effect, over an amorphous issue that finds an embittered and embattled minority up in arms. And yet, history marches onward.
In our household, we marvel at the passion and the heedless illogic displayed by the opponents of a workplace smoking ban in New Albany. On first reading, a majority of the city council approved a comprehensive ban that would take effect some time shortly after Thanksgiving, given two more affirmative votes on Thursday night.
Admittedly, passage of the ordinance would be an occasion of thanks giving, in our view. For those of us who do not smoke, dining out is a completely positive experience when done in a restaurant where smoking is prohibited.
Yes, I can eat at home. Yes, I can eat at national chain restaurants that, on the issue of smoking, "get it," even if that is an educated and calculated bottom-line decision. But why should I be discouraged from frequenting the independent restaurants and pubs I would prefer to visit and give my custom?
Yes, it's our choice. If we want to eat at Studio's or The New Albanian Pub or Federal Hill Cafe, we may. We must, of course, consume our share of second-hand smoke to do so, but it is our choice.
According to The Tribune, 57% of New Albanians over the age of 18 favor a ban on workplace smoking, as reported by an "unscientific" poll. A more rigorous scientific poll says 68% of New Albanians favor it. We favor it.
But we simply don't understand the passion this "issue" evokes.
We wrote recently at salon.com about how we believe that incalculable damage will be done to our local economy by refraining from passing this ordinance; can you imagine how backward would be the city who was the last in the nation to prohibit smoking in the workplace?
We are puzzled by that this ordinance has become, in essence, a ban on bar and restaurant smoking. But it has. And while we don't discriminate against quality establishments that allow smoking, we prefer, strenuously, those who vigorously prohibit it. And so do most of those who smoke.
At last, we come to the quality of the arguments in opposition to the ordinance.
One prolific blog commenter continues to harp on the "professionalism" (they're paid) of public health advocates, noting that the fact that they are paid to create a healthy environment somehow diminishes the quality of their arguments...that the funding for same comes from tobacco taxes and legitimate judicial settlements...It reminds us of those, like Sen. James Inhofe, who bandy about the idea that global warming is some nefarious conspiracy of ultra-liberal, hate-America cabal.
Facts are facts. Fabricated evidence isn't legitimate. Peer-reviewed studies of epidemiological data make the anti-smoking evidence undebatable. Period. Ad hominem attacks don't make the facts different.
On and on it can go, and assuredly will when the council passes a comprehensive ban on Thursday.
There will be, as there has been, interminable gum-flapping, afterward. It's kinda fun. But we can't summon the passion for the argument. We'd love to visit certain establishments more often without becoming an involuntary smoker. We applaud our representatives for legislating on the issue and would welcome a comprehensive ban.
We guarantee you that we are capable of addressing the many, many "arguments" put forward, but enough is enough. Masturbating doesn't produce progeny. And blogging doesn't produce changed minds.
That doesn't mean we will stop. Blogging, that is.
Why, Friday morning, the debate will be either 1) Why it would be foolish or wise of Mayor Doug England to veto/sign the ordinance, or 2) Why it was foolish of the council to exempt "private" clubs or public bars from the ordinance.
You see, there's plenty of time.
As an aside, we'll note that H.L. Mencken got great mileage out of ridiculing those who debated the demonstrable evidence of science and sought to legislate against it, to, in fact, attempt to hold back the tide of facts. He did not end up on the side of specious, tortured arguments. The curmudgeon did not end up on the wrong side of history.
And as a second aside, no longer does anyone rally to the idea that we may, on our private property, conduct any enterprise we wish without government regulation. It might be lucrative...it might be key to our survival...to use our property for the provision of full-body massage to release. But it ain't allowed, either by law or by zoning ordinance. We can't conduct chemical reclamation of precious metals from computer circuit boards under existing zoning ordinances, either. We can't sell merchandise without providing at least 10 off-street parking spaces.
How is that different from legislating that we can't serve alcoholic beverages or eggs and bacon where workers OR patrons are subjected to second-hand smoke?
Where were all the civil libertarians this year when the state of Indiana decided that they would determine your choice of what books you would buy? We didn't see Steve Price stepping up to challenge that "freedom of choice," which is, inarguably, much more critical to civilization than the "right" to smoke in a bar.
Where were all the civil libertarians over the past six years when the city council intentionally decided that the constitutional principle of equal representation was of no consequence?
Frankly, we say "Felix Unger" to all of you "civil libertarians" who have decided that this is the issue where you will take your stands.
We told a gathering today that we believed that the end of the world was a provable fact...and that New Albany was simply a test market.
We (by this I mean those masochist idealists who continue to use the bi-monthly city council meetings the way the Polar Bear Society uses Lake Michigan in January) will, assuredly, witness the zeroth degree of shame demonstrated by the council on this coming evening. Enormous energies will be expended, perhaps to no effect, over an amorphous issue that finds an embittered and embattled minority up in arms. And yet, history marches onward.
In our household, we marvel at the passion and the heedless illogic displayed by the opponents of a workplace smoking ban in New Albany. On first reading, a majority of the city council approved a comprehensive ban that would take effect some time shortly after Thanksgiving, given two more affirmative votes on Thursday night.
Admittedly, passage of the ordinance would be an occasion of thanks giving, in our view. For those of us who do not smoke, dining out is a completely positive experience when done in a restaurant where smoking is prohibited.
Yes, I can eat at home. Yes, I can eat at national chain restaurants that, on the issue of smoking, "get it," even if that is an educated and calculated bottom-line decision. But why should I be discouraged from frequenting the independent restaurants and pubs I would prefer to visit and give my custom?
Yes, it's our choice. If we want to eat at Studio's or The New Albanian Pub or Federal Hill Cafe, we may. We must, of course, consume our share of second-hand smoke to do so, but it is our choice.
According to The Tribune, 57% of New Albanians over the age of 18 favor a ban on workplace smoking, as reported by an "unscientific" poll. A more rigorous scientific poll says 68% of New Albanians favor it. We favor it.
But we simply don't understand the passion this "issue" evokes.
We wrote recently at salon.com about how we believe that incalculable damage will be done to our local economy by refraining from passing this ordinance; can you imagine how backward would be the city who was the last in the nation to prohibit smoking in the workplace?
We are puzzled by that this ordinance has become, in essence, a ban on bar and restaurant smoking. But it has. And while we don't discriminate against quality establishments that allow smoking, we prefer, strenuously, those who vigorously prohibit it. And so do most of those who smoke.
At last, we come to the quality of the arguments in opposition to the ordinance.
One prolific blog commenter continues to harp on the "professionalism" (they're paid) of public health advocates, noting that the fact that they are paid to create a healthy environment somehow diminishes the quality of their arguments...that the funding for same comes from tobacco taxes and legitimate judicial settlements...It reminds us of those, like Sen. James Inhofe, who bandy about the idea that global warming is some nefarious conspiracy of ultra-liberal, hate-America cabal.
Facts are facts. Fabricated evidence isn't legitimate. Peer-reviewed studies of epidemiological data make the anti-smoking evidence undebatable. Period. Ad hominem attacks don't make the facts different.
On and on it can go, and assuredly will when the council passes a comprehensive ban on Thursday.
There will be, as there has been, interminable gum-flapping, afterward. It's kinda fun. But we can't summon the passion for the argument. We'd love to visit certain establishments more often without becoming an involuntary smoker. We applaud our representatives for legislating on the issue and would welcome a comprehensive ban.
We guarantee you that we are capable of addressing the many, many "arguments" put forward, but enough is enough. Masturbating doesn't produce progeny. And blogging doesn't produce changed minds.
That doesn't mean we will stop. Blogging, that is.
Why, Friday morning, the debate will be either 1) Why it would be foolish or wise of Mayor Doug England to veto/sign the ordinance, or 2) Why it was foolish of the council to exempt "private" clubs or public bars from the ordinance.
You see, there's plenty of time.
As an aside, we'll note that H.L. Mencken got great mileage out of ridiculing those who debated the demonstrable evidence of science and sought to legislate against it, to, in fact, attempt to hold back the tide of facts. He did not end up on the side of specious, tortured arguments. The curmudgeon did not end up on the wrong side of history.
And as a second aside, no longer does anyone rally to the idea that we may, on our private property, conduct any enterprise we wish without government regulation. It might be lucrative...it might be key to our survival...to use our property for the provision of full-body massage to release. But it ain't allowed, either by law or by zoning ordinance. We can't conduct chemical reclamation of precious metals from computer circuit boards under existing zoning ordinances, either. We can't sell merchandise without providing at least 10 off-street parking spaces.
How is that different from legislating that we can't serve alcoholic beverages or eggs and bacon where workers OR patrons are subjected to second-hand smoke?
Where were all the civil libertarians this year when the state of Indiana decided that they would determine your choice of what books you would buy? We didn't see Steve Price stepping up to challenge that "freedom of choice," which is, inarguably, much more critical to civilization than the "right" to smoke in a bar.
Where were all the civil libertarians over the past six years when the city council intentionally decided that the constitutional principle of equal representation was of no consequence?
Frankly, we say "Felix Unger" to all of you "civil libertarians" who have decided that this is the issue where you will take your stands.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Quick Hits from Monday Night
Monday's City Council meeting was remarkable. For the record, the early work session saw a promising rollout of the city's plans for a comprehensive remake of ordinance enforcement, with a focus on rental housing inspections.
It seems clear that the council as a whole has adopted the progressive mantra that rental properties are BUSINESSES and should be appropriately registered and regulated.
But the big news from the evening was the passage (on first reading) of an almost-complete ban on smoking in the workplace.
As a political feat, Jeff Gahan's accomplishment is worthy of remark. Putative sponsor Bob Caesar (D2) put forward an exhaustively comprehensive ban on workplace smoking that earned the "aye" votes of Dan Coffey (D1), Pat McLaughlin (D4), John Gonder (At-large), and president Jeff Gahan (D6). If that majority holds 17 days from now, only Mayor Doug England's veto would prevent New Albany from joining the vanguard of the future in making its commercial and retail establishments smoke-free.
Thanks to New Albany Now for early returns. D5 voted no.
It seems clear that the council as a whole has adopted the progressive mantra that rental properties are BUSINESSES and should be appropriately registered and regulated.
But the big news from the evening was the passage (on first reading) of an almost-complete ban on smoking in the workplace.
As a political feat, Jeff Gahan's accomplishment is worthy of remark. Putative sponsor Bob Caesar (D2) put forward an exhaustively comprehensive ban on workplace smoking that earned the "aye" votes of Dan Coffey (D1), Pat McLaughlin (D4), John Gonder (At-large), and president Jeff Gahan (D6). If that majority holds 17 days from now, only Mayor Doug England's veto would prevent New Albany from joining the vanguard of the future in making its commercial and retail establishments smoke-free.
Thanks to New Albany Now for early returns. D5 voted no.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)