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.