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?
Showing posts with label new albany. Show all posts
Showing posts with label new albany. Show all posts
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.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Our Money's Worth?
The debate is put into sharp contrast in Wednesday's editions of The Tribune, and we encourage you to read the entire piece by Daniel Suddeath, the rookie reporter charged by his editors with covering the city government and political affairs. You can read it here.
There is much to be astonished by in the necessarily cursory coverage of three hours of preliminary budget wrangling. We are apparently supposed to be assuaged by the supposedly unexpected and "unmanageable by human ingenuity" increases in fuel costs and overtime expenditures. Sorry, we're not buying it. There is no excuse. Overtime is, for the most part, a function of the tendency of the appropriating and taxing body (the city council) to shy away from doing anything to repair the structural deficiencies, i.e. understaffing of the public safety functions of government, the one inarguable duty of the city and the equally indisputable top expectation of New Albany's residents.
But our job is to shadow this council, so we'll restrict our commentary to the council's budget.
The sharp contrast came during debate over the salaries of council members.
Echoing a previous refrain summoned up during debate over the still-unfinished redistricting, D5 Diane McCartin Benedetti (hey, we're not the ones who tried to draw attention to the maiden name) repeated the Bushtastic line that "it's hard...it's hard work" in advocating for a raise for council. She said, according to Suddeath's reporting, that higher salaries were necessary to induce more qualified residents to step forward to serve on the city legislature.
We can't begin to agree more with Mrs. B that the council needs more qualified people. But we strongly disagree with the contention that raising their pay will result in a "better" council.
CM At-Large Jack Messer, not a wealthy man by any means, countered with a firm but gentle rebuke, saying [council candidates] shouldn’t be running for office for the money, again according to Suddeath. "Let's face it," he said Tuesday, "we chose to be here."
We don't advocate for the lowest common denominator - you know, someone like the anonymous trogblogger who complained he/she hadn't read anything in the paper about the budget hearings. For our money, you can't get much lower or common than some of the current council members, particularly those who were elected from unconstitutionally aligned districts.
For these illegitimate occupants of office to draw $11,500 ($12,700 for gang leader Jeff Gahan) is remarkable in light of their nonperformance and malfeasance in office.
So let's engage in a little University of Chicago economics. Let's institute zero-based budgeting with our public finances and zero out council salaries and try to establish a fair recompense for the services rendered.
Before we outline our proposal let us say that we believe the salary set for New Albany's full-time mayor continues to be embarrassingly below par. So this proposal is most definitely not about the city's executive compensation.
New Albany is decades away from the kind of financial prosperity that would justify paying our part-time legislators the kind of money that would serve as an incentive for someone to divert time from career and family in exchange for cash.
In fact, the salary this city pays its legislators is just enough to attract otherwise unemployable people to seek the job. City council should not be a jobs program for the unemployable. A subsistence salary large enough to supplement the lives of a two-income family allows nonentities, the feeble-minded, superannuaries, and apparatchiks to pocket just enough to cover their bar tabs, their manicures, and their toy drives. In short, the salary now attracts the least qualified while discouraging the qualified.
Since we are extremely unlikely to ever raise the salary to a point where the qualified will clamor to obtain the office because of the attractive remuneration, why not drop the salary to a level that purports to cover expenses only.
How about $300 a month? What about $30 an hour?
We invite you to pick a number. Explain your reasoning, if you like. But certainly, discuss among yourselves.
Zero the salaries out. $30 an hour is about what we pay the average full-time cop. It's far more than we pay most other full-time city workers.
Let's test Diane McCartin Benedetti's thesis for the next three years and see if we get better performance or worse performance from the council. Then let's zero it out for 2012 and let a newly-elected council establish its own salary for their next three years.
Sound fair to you?
There is much to be astonished by in the necessarily cursory coverage of three hours of preliminary budget wrangling. We are apparently supposed to be assuaged by the supposedly unexpected and "unmanageable by human ingenuity" increases in fuel costs and overtime expenditures. Sorry, we're not buying it. There is no excuse. Overtime is, for the most part, a function of the tendency of the appropriating and taxing body (the city council) to shy away from doing anything to repair the structural deficiencies, i.e. understaffing of the public safety functions of government, the one inarguable duty of the city and the equally indisputable top expectation of New Albany's residents.
But our job is to shadow this council, so we'll restrict our commentary to the council's budget.
The sharp contrast came during debate over the salaries of council members.
Echoing a previous refrain summoned up during debate over the still-unfinished redistricting, D5 Diane McCartin Benedetti (hey, we're not the ones who tried to draw attention to the maiden name) repeated the Bushtastic line that "it's hard...it's hard work" in advocating for a raise for council. She said, according to Suddeath's reporting, that higher salaries were necessary to induce more qualified residents to step forward to serve on the city legislature.
We can't begin to agree more with Mrs. B that the council needs more qualified people. But we strongly disagree with the contention that raising their pay will result in a "better" council.
CM At-Large Jack Messer, not a wealthy man by any means, countered with a firm but gentle rebuke, saying [council candidates] shouldn’t be running for office for the money, again according to Suddeath. "Let's face it," he said Tuesday, "we chose to be here."
We don't advocate for the lowest common denominator - you know, someone like the anonymous trogblogger who complained he/she hadn't read anything in the paper about the budget hearings. For our money, you can't get much lower or common than some of the current council members, particularly those who were elected from unconstitutionally aligned districts.
For these illegitimate occupants of office to draw $11,500 ($12,700 for gang leader Jeff Gahan) is remarkable in light of their nonperformance and malfeasance in office.
So let's engage in a little University of Chicago economics. Let's institute zero-based budgeting with our public finances and zero out council salaries and try to establish a fair recompense for the services rendered.
Before we outline our proposal let us say that we believe the salary set for New Albany's full-time mayor continues to be embarrassingly below par. So this proposal is most definitely not about the city's executive compensation.
New Albany is decades away from the kind of financial prosperity that would justify paying our part-time legislators the kind of money that would serve as an incentive for someone to divert time from career and family in exchange for cash.
In fact, the salary this city pays its legislators is just enough to attract otherwise unemployable people to seek the job. City council should not be a jobs program for the unemployable. A subsistence salary large enough to supplement the lives of a two-income family allows nonentities, the feeble-minded, superannuaries, and apparatchiks to pocket just enough to cover their bar tabs, their manicures, and their toy drives. In short, the salary now attracts the least qualified while discouraging the qualified.
Since we are extremely unlikely to ever raise the salary to a point where the qualified will clamor to obtain the office because of the attractive remuneration, why not drop the salary to a level that purports to cover expenses only.
How about $300 a month? What about $30 an hour?
We invite you to pick a number. Explain your reasoning, if you like. But certainly, discuss among yourselves.
Zero the salaries out. $30 an hour is about what we pay the average full-time cop. It's far more than we pay most other full-time city workers.
Let's test Diane McCartin Benedetti's thesis for the next three years and see if we get better performance or worse performance from the council. Then let's zero it out for 2012 and let a newly-elected council establish its own salary for their next three years.
Sound fair to you?
Monday, July 21, 2008
Why Does Gahan Want the Court to Redistrict?
While the public mostly ignores redistricting, politicians know in the marrow
of their bones how much redistricting matters. - Behind Closed Doors: The Recurring Plague of Redistricting and the Politics of Geography, Steven Hill.
...and that's the truth. How the lines are drawn is critical, and political. Which makes it all the more peculiar that Jeff Gahan and his colleagues in the majority continue to take the incredible risk that New Albany's City Council district lines will be drawn by someone other than elected officials.
Yet that is what they risk, and continue to risk.
One theory put forward is that if the council were to pass an ordinance redrawing the districts to comply with the actual population shifts between 1990 and 2000 it would be an admission that the districts from which they were elected were illegitimate, making their elections illegitimate, and causing their offices to be declared vacant.
As a matter of course, Democratic Party officials would appoint them to serve out the unexpired terms for the new districts. But the sitting members would have to reside in the newly drawn districts. Since it would be impossible to draw logical and lawful districts that would protect every currently voting member, someone would be permanently removed and replaced.
The special committee of disinterested council members and residents, none of whom took into consideration the residence locations of currently voting members and none of whom sought to protect the currently voting members, demonstrated conclusively that a lawful redistricting would not be able to protect all members. Population shifts make it impossible to do so.
Anyone who wants to prove or disprove it can obtain the committee report, which contains the verified population numbers for each and every census block in New Albany. Pick a corner, pick an edge, and then aggregate a population totaling 6,325 and stop. Then move on to the adjacent geography (the next district) and do the same.
When you are finished (many, many hours later), go to the city's Web site and locate the residences of the six people currently voting on the council and see for yourself how it is not possible to redraw the council districts without creating districts that contain two or more voting members.
What is certain is that a lawful redistricting will be done. Only Gahan, McCartin Benedetti, Price, Coffey, and McLaughlin want the districts to be drawn by someone other than the council. If that were not true, they would pass a lawful district plan immediately and remove forever the possibility that a Federal District Court judge would invite competing plans.
Steven Hill is senior analyst for the Center for Voting and Democracy
of their bones how much redistricting matters. - Behind Closed Doors: The Recurring Plague of Redistricting and the Politics of Geography, Steven Hill.
...and that's the truth. How the lines are drawn is critical, and political. Which makes it all the more peculiar that Jeff Gahan and his colleagues in the majority continue to take the incredible risk that New Albany's City Council district lines will be drawn by someone other than elected officials.
Yet that is what they risk, and continue to risk.
One theory put forward is that if the council were to pass an ordinance redrawing the districts to comply with the actual population shifts between 1990 and 2000 it would be an admission that the districts from which they were elected were illegitimate, making their elections illegitimate, and causing their offices to be declared vacant.
As a matter of course, Democratic Party officials would appoint them to serve out the unexpired terms for the new districts. But the sitting members would have to reside in the newly drawn districts. Since it would be impossible to draw logical and lawful districts that would protect every currently voting member, someone would be permanently removed and replaced.
The special committee of disinterested council members and residents, none of whom took into consideration the residence locations of currently voting members and none of whom sought to protect the currently voting members, demonstrated conclusively that a lawful redistricting would not be able to protect all members. Population shifts make it impossible to do so.
Anyone who wants to prove or disprove it can obtain the committee report, which contains the verified population numbers for each and every census block in New Albany. Pick a corner, pick an edge, and then aggregate a population totaling 6,325 and stop. Then move on to the adjacent geography (the next district) and do the same.
When you are finished (many, many hours later), go to the city's Web site and locate the residences of the six people currently voting on the council and see for yourself how it is not possible to redraw the council districts without creating districts that contain two or more voting members.
What is certain is that a lawful redistricting will be done. Only Gahan, McCartin Benedetti, Price, Coffey, and McLaughlin want the districts to be drawn by someone other than the council. If that were not true, they would pass a lawful district plan immediately and remove forever the possibility that a Federal District Court judge would invite competing plans.
Steven Hill is senior analyst for the Center for Voting and Democracy
Sunday, July 20, 2008
We Couldn't Say It Better
May we refer you onward to the new blog associated with New Albany Now, at newalbanynow.blogspot.com?
We had the privilege of listening (at our leisure) to the complete coverage of last Thursday's meeting of the New Albany City Council. After hearing it, we share the outrage of the blogger.
We had the privilege of listening (at our leisure) to the complete coverage of last Thursday's meeting of the New Albany City Council. After hearing it, we share the outrage of the blogger.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Don't Miss This
New Albany Now will have coverage of the New Albany City Council Thursday (7/17/08) at 11 p.m. We won't be able to attend the meeting, so we look forward to listening to the show and being one of the first to find out what happened. Here's a link to the show site (We hope it works. We got it from the site). And we subscribe to the show blog
http://newalbanynow.blogspot.com/.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Twelve Questions
This thought is not original to the shadow, but it is the legitimate question of the day.
If someone works to ensure that an election is illegal and is then "voted" into "government" as a result of that illegal election, are they actually empowered to wield authority?
That gem came through the keyboard of the always precise bluegill, one of the geniuses at NA Confidential.
Not one, but two city councils have now been seated illegally. No matter how many people voted for the six members elected from districts, their entitlement to hold office is under a severe cloud.
The president of the council intends for a third election to be held. That intention will be thwarted, but his intention to thwart The Constitution severely erodes his personal legitimacy and is evidence of a severe erosion in the man's credibility.
Others, elected and otherwise, are screaming "politics," as if representative government isn't about politics. But when the game is rigged, it's not representative government. It's a banana republic where power has been seized by an undemocratic gang of thugs.
Now, more than one of the scofflaws will claim that he or she merely became a candidate under the ground rules as they were at the time(s) they ran. But the game is still rigged. Personal political survival is not a justification for continuing to allow it to be so.
FIRST: Is the council obligated to redistrict? Yes. Indiana state law requires it.
SECOND: Has the council redrawn the boundaries? No. The districts today are the same as they were in 1992.
THIRD: What does the County Commission have to do with this? Nothing. They are not empowered to say or do anything with regard to the legislative districts of a city of the second class.
FOURTH: How about the County Clerk? Nope. The council does have to give the clerk ten days notice in certain instances and does have to implement elections based on the districts, but the clerk otherwise has nothing to say about it.
FIFTH: Who can redraw the districts? The council, and the council alone.
SIXTH: What if they don't? Or what if they draw illegal districts? Someone must ask a court to order it done.
SEVENTH: Does it matter? According to the U.S. Supreme Court, it does.
EIGHTH: What will happen if someone sues? The court will order the council to draw legal districts.
NINTH: What if the council refuses to draw legal districts? They could appeal the order, and lose, and appeal the order, and lose. Then they could be fined or jailed if they continue to refuse.
TENTH: Who would pay the fine? Probably the taxpayers.
ELEVENTH: If they go to jail, how would they get out? They wouldn't until they agree to draw legal districts.
TWELFTH: What if they agree to do it, but don't? They will go to jail again. See ELEVENTH question.
Any other discussion is irrelevant. These are the questions and the only questions.
The motives of interested parties are irrelevant. The personal desires of the voters are irrelevant. Manufactured "concerns" are irrelevant. Where a sitting council member lives is irrelevant.
When you hear or read discussions that don't deal with those twelve questions, you're listening to or reading hypocritical, insincere, ignorant claptrap. Any discussion that doesn't address those twelve questions directly is politically driven. The speaker or writer is either defending the thugs or is poisoned by hatred toward anyone who seeks to drive the discussion back to those twelve questions. That includes sitting council members, the council president, and their defenders.
We have a Constitution, we have a statute. City council does not have the option to do nothing. You may wish it were not the case, but the law is crystal clear.
It ain't over.
If someone works to ensure that an election is illegal and is then "voted" into "government" as a result of that illegal election, are they actually empowered to wield authority?
That gem came through the keyboard of the always precise bluegill, one of the geniuses at NA Confidential.
Not one, but two city councils have now been seated illegally. No matter how many people voted for the six members elected from districts, their entitlement to hold office is under a severe cloud.
The president of the council intends for a third election to be held. That intention will be thwarted, but his intention to thwart The Constitution severely erodes his personal legitimacy and is evidence of a severe erosion in the man's credibility.
Others, elected and otherwise, are screaming "politics," as if representative government isn't about politics. But when the game is rigged, it's not representative government. It's a banana republic where power has been seized by an undemocratic gang of thugs.
Now, more than one of the scofflaws will claim that he or she merely became a candidate under the ground rules as they were at the time(s) they ran. But the game is still rigged. Personal political survival is not a justification for continuing to allow it to be so.
FIRST: Is the council obligated to redistrict? Yes. Indiana state law requires it.
SECOND: Has the council redrawn the boundaries? No. The districts today are the same as they were in 1992.
THIRD: What does the County Commission have to do with this? Nothing. They are not empowered to say or do anything with regard to the legislative districts of a city of the second class.
FOURTH: How about the County Clerk? Nope. The council does have to give the clerk ten days notice in certain instances and does have to implement elections based on the districts, but the clerk otherwise has nothing to say about it.
FIFTH: Who can redraw the districts? The council, and the council alone.
SIXTH: What if they don't? Or what if they draw illegal districts? Someone must ask a court to order it done.
SEVENTH: Does it matter? According to the U.S. Supreme Court, it does.
EIGHTH: What will happen if someone sues? The court will order the council to draw legal districts.
NINTH: What if the council refuses to draw legal districts? They could appeal the order, and lose, and appeal the order, and lose. Then they could be fined or jailed if they continue to refuse.
TENTH: Who would pay the fine? Probably the taxpayers.
ELEVENTH: If they go to jail, how would they get out? They wouldn't until they agree to draw legal districts.
TWELFTH: What if they agree to do it, but don't? They will go to jail again. See ELEVENTH question.
Any other discussion is irrelevant. These are the questions and the only questions.
The motives of interested parties are irrelevant. The personal desires of the voters are irrelevant. Manufactured "concerns" are irrelevant. Where a sitting council member lives is irrelevant.
When you hear or read discussions that don't deal with those twelve questions, you're listening to or reading hypocritical, insincere, ignorant claptrap. Any discussion that doesn't address those twelve questions directly is politically driven. The speaker or writer is either defending the thugs or is poisoned by hatred toward anyone who seeks to drive the discussion back to those twelve questions. That includes sitting council members, the council president, and their defenders.
We have a Constitution, we have a statute. City council does not have the option to do nothing. You may wish it were not the case, but the law is crystal clear.
It ain't over.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
A June Week of Consequence
Almost no one will take notice of it, but the June and July convocations (canonical prayer and religious pledge included) of the Common Council for the City of New Albany are destined to be determinative ones.
Tomorrow, we hope to bring you our very best arguments for a progressive future (and one that seems doomed, based on today's report by Daniel Suddeath in The Tribune).
But today, we want to merely set the stage.
Stealing from a book promotion, we found this snippet:
Global warming.
50 million Americans uninsured.
Massive budget deficits.
Failing public schools.
A tarnished national image.
These are not policy failures.
Actually, these crises are the inevitable result of the policies we've chosen. Today's policies were designed to treat our dependence on oil as a given, our basic health as a luxury, an inadequate education as a privilege, and our children's wealth as our own.
A "donut" economy with regard to downtown commerce.
Streets that exact an enormous financial toll on New Albany drivers.
A confusing array of nonsensical traffic patterns that encourage speedway behavior and that discourage commercial traffic.
A diminishing commitment to community and, in particular, community schools.
A dependent and debilitated sewer utility inadequate to meet the community's needs and unable to support itself from its own revenues.
Policies that encourage criminal enterprises to migrate into New Albany.
Policies that discourage home ownership and allow irresponsible absentee house owners to prosper.
A defensive, insular, survival response on the part of residents whereby they "hunker down" and try to survive all of the above.
We know it's a revolutionary proposition, but we would propose that ALL of the above abominable results are the inevitable result of the policies we've chosen.
This IS the challenge we face. This IS our defining moment.
When 2011 rolls around, we must be ready to replace those who endorse the policies that are designed to destroy our common weal. When 2011 rolls around, we must have rallied a majority who reject both the policies and the inevitable results those policies have created.
One thing we do know. D5 is not part of the solution.
Check back tomorrow.
Our illustrious Sewer Board, purportedly not under the direction of our current chief executive, is prepared to continue a policy designed to further degrade New Albany, and by extension, the prosperity of all New Albanians. Quelle horror!
Tomorrow, we hope to bring you our very best arguments for a progressive future (and one that seems doomed, based on today's report by Daniel Suddeath in The Tribune).
But today, we want to merely set the stage.
Stealing from a book promotion, we found this snippet:
Global warming.
50 million Americans uninsured.
Massive budget deficits.
Failing public schools.
A tarnished national image.
These are not policy failures.
Actually, these crises are the inevitable result of the policies we've chosen. Today's policies were designed to treat our dependence on oil as a given, our basic health as a luxury, an inadequate education as a privilege, and our children's wealth as our own.
A "donut" economy with regard to downtown commerce.
Streets that exact an enormous financial toll on New Albany drivers.
A confusing array of nonsensical traffic patterns that encourage speedway behavior and that discourage commercial traffic.
A diminishing commitment to community and, in particular, community schools.
A dependent and debilitated sewer utility inadequate to meet the community's needs and unable to support itself from its own revenues.
Policies that encourage criminal enterprises to migrate into New Albany.
Policies that discourage home ownership and allow irresponsible absentee house owners to prosper.
A defensive, insular, survival response on the part of residents whereby they "hunker down" and try to survive all of the above.
We know it's a revolutionary proposition, but we would propose that ALL of the above abominable results are the inevitable result of the policies we've chosen.
This IS the challenge we face. This IS our defining moment.
When 2011 rolls around, we must be ready to replace those who endorse the policies that are designed to destroy our common weal. When 2011 rolls around, we must have rallied a majority who reject both the policies and the inevitable results those policies have created.
One thing we do know. D5 is not part of the solution.
Check back tomorrow.
Our illustrious Sewer Board, purportedly not under the direction of our current chief executive, is prepared to continue a policy designed to further degrade New Albany, and by extension, the prosperity of all New Albanians. Quelle horror!
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Looking Backward
Hey, that would make a great book title. And it did. Edward Bellamy's utopian vision resides on most "must-read" lists, even though it was written in Victorian times.
Our point, however, is that the posts on this page were written in "reverse impression." The duty part of the reporting comes first on the page (date/time stamp), but came last in the writing.
Here is the legislation that moved Monday night, June 2, 2008:
"The Gary's" PUDD on Charlestown Road went down to defeat on first reading, 5-2, with little sis' and Sir Dan Coffey voting to approve.
A PUDD for the Silvercrest property was approved on first reading.
JTR Properties got approval for its planned unit development, first reading.
SDR Development and ICON Properties likewise gained approval from council on first reading.
Mr. Harshey's vacation of a utility easement was approved on final reading.
An emergency interfund transfer was authorized to meet payroll in the event tax receipts aren't, well, "receipted."
A half-million dollars was approved for paving.
"Novelty" lighters were (ineffectively) "regulated." Final reading and passage.
Most (7) tax abatement renewals were granted. One was delayed by council, one was delayed at petitioner's request.
At long last, and with no explanation for the perilous delay, the city's request to participate in federal CDBG revenue sharing was authorized.
Loop Island was declared, without objection, to be an insane area for economic development assistance.
Park East, Old Monon, State Street Garage, and Charlestown Road TIF districts were expanded. D3 Steve Price voted no on all of them. D1 Dan Coffey voted no on the one that might boost his own district's prospects.
A flawed "resolution" to rezone the West End was tabled without due process under the law, but will be back. Bet they won't vote on that, either.
We are promised yet another 6 p.m. work session before a future meeting. Can't argue with that. This council seems to need them, whether for education or grandstanding and general passive-aggressiveness.
Hey, did we scoop The Tribune?
Our point, however, is that the posts on this page were written in "reverse impression." The duty part of the reporting comes first on the page (date/time stamp), but came last in the writing.
Here is the legislation that moved Monday night, June 2, 2008:
"The Gary's" PUDD on Charlestown Road went down to defeat on first reading, 5-2, with little sis' and Sir Dan Coffey voting to approve.
A PUDD for the Silvercrest property was approved on first reading.
JTR Properties got approval for its planned unit development, first reading.
SDR Development and ICON Properties likewise gained approval from council on first reading.
Mr. Harshey's vacation of a utility easement was approved on final reading.
An emergency interfund transfer was authorized to meet payroll in the event tax receipts aren't, well, "receipted."
A half-million dollars was approved for paving.
"Novelty" lighters were (ineffectively) "regulated." Final reading and passage.
Most (7) tax abatement renewals were granted. One was delayed by council, one was delayed at petitioner's request.
At long last, and with no explanation for the perilous delay, the city's request to participate in federal CDBG revenue sharing was authorized.
Loop Island was declared, without objection, to be an insane area for economic development assistance.
Park East, Old Monon, State Street Garage, and Charlestown Road TIF districts were expanded. D3 Steve Price voted no on all of them. D1 Dan Coffey voted no on the one that might boost his own district's prospects.
A flawed "resolution" to rezone the West End was tabled without due process under the law, but will be back. Bet they won't vote on that, either.
We are promised yet another 6 p.m. work session before a future meeting. Can't argue with that. This council seems to need them, whether for education or grandstanding and general passive-aggressiveness.
Hey, did we scoop The Tribune?
Monday, June 2, 2008
Just 5 Months...and the Wheels are Coming Off
This blog was scolded for sharing thoughts earlier in the year. We were taken to task for purportedly jumping to conclusions and for not seeing the forest for the trees.The occasion was a January posting labeled "A Parade of Ignorance," in which we projected that any progressive agenda would be dead on arrival because of a bloc of ignorance.
We trusted our instincts then in reading the tea leaves. We were called "premature." But this council has now served 10% of its term. Our analysis has been borne out by subsequent events and even though this iteration of the Common Council for the City of New Albany has held office for only 152 days, we're prepared to restate that projection based on the evidence at hand.
Perhaps the most telling case was the council's last meeting in May. The most egregious misfeasance came early in that meeting when D1 Dan Coffey "tabled" a motion to authorize the city's pro forma application for federal Community Development Block Grants. D5 Diane McCartin-Benedetti was not in attendance that evening, but from her public comments and subsequent actions as a member of the Redevelopment Commission, it is certainly safe to say that she is marching in lockstep with the senior council member when it comes to lack of common sense.
It's understandable that a neophyte politician might seek out the counsel of a more experienced colleague. It is not that effort that deserves criticism. However, D5 shows execrable judgment in linking arms with Mr. Coffey. Her performance as a council member has been undistinguished so far and shows signs of becoming positively inimical to the best interests of the city and of her constituents in District 5.
The vehicle that is our city council, with D6 Jeff Gahan ostensibly in the driver's seat, is weaving all over the place. The wheels are coming off and the wreck is imminent. McCartin-Benedetti may or may not believe that she is just along for the ride. But she is not doing anything to help steer a solid course to the betterment of New Albany.
At that last meeting, Mr. Gahan placed the CDBG authorization resolution into Mr. Coffey's hands. Instead of introducing the resolution, which under any normal circumstances would be a purely ministerial function, Coffey declined to bring it to a vote.
Setting aside for a moment the parliamentary impropriety of squelching debate on an item properly submitted and approved for the meeting agenda, the substantial impact of that move was to put in danger New Albany's eligibility for the single largest and most effective revenue sharing program available to us. Until that moment it would have been hard to see how any public servant could avoid being pilloried for rejecting federal largesse - money taken from us generally, but then directed toward commonly agreed-upon projects for the core of the city.
Yet, no member of council challenged Mr. Coffey. Not the president. Not the members.
What compelling reason did Mr. Coffey offer to justify this reckless move? Well, according to the minutes of the meeting, it was "because of the laws that were passed by the legislation there were a lot of changes." The council will, apparently, soon have original jurisdiction (instead of just final authority) over certain redevelopment proposals. Despite the fact that two members of the council sit on the Redevelopment Commission, despite the fact that numerous public hearings were held to build the list of possible projects that CDBG money might be used for, Mr. Coffey wanted to consult with his "experts" before putting New Albany's application in.
Thus, New Albany missed a critical deadline. In effect, Mr. Coffey and his colleagues sent a message to the feds, saying "We don't believe in abiding by your stinking rules."
Astute observers will note that Mr. Coffey failed to address, much less permit debate on, which of the myriad projects on the list failed to float his boat. As an inveterate wrecker who fears anything he doesn't understand, Mr. Coffey hid behind process to achieve his substantial goal of loosening the lug nuts on the wheels of the city.
And the council went along with it.
Ironically, the process used was in clear violation of the controlling procedural ordinances and the rules that govern council meetings. It reminds me of the quaint New Albanian custom of treating STOP signs as advisory only.
For tonight's agenda, follow this link (current agenda only). For details of legislation under consideration tonight, follow this link. Hey, Marcey. What's up with that? How can the public get to ordinances up for second reading, or past legislation and tabled ordinances?
News photo credit: NA Confidential
Friday, May 16, 2008
Apologies to The Bard (a guest column)
Doing a daily blog, or even a semi-regular posting, is not for everyone. But original thinking is inherent in most of us. This blog is pleased to present another view of the most recent city council meeting, offered this afternoon by netizen iamhoosier. Thanks, Mark.
Praise, burial, comedy, masquerading. All happened last night at the Common Council meeting.
First, there was a “comedy” as I read the agenda. An old cover letter was inadvertently used and was “signed” by Larry Kochert. The comedy, it turns out, foreshadowed a masquerade by Council President Gahan. Mr. Naville, attorney for the pawn shop, rose to speak during the Council’s discussion and question phase, after failing to be present at the earlier “agenda items” slot, for which he had signed up. It was suggested (I believe by Mr. Gahan) that Naville be allowed to speak. Mr. Bob Caesar (ain’t this great?) said, “If he speaks, they all speak.” Gahan froze for a moment and almost seemed ready to agree. Steve Price suggested that Mr. Naville could be questioned (which would be the proper way). Naville said that he was told at a previous meeting that it was better that he spoke when the ordinance came up (which, I do believe he was told). Gahan, again momentarily froze and then allowed the attorney to speak. And speak. And speak. Eerily reminiscent of some of the disorganized Council meetings under a past President.
I also come to praise Councilmember Steve Price. He made an excellent point about how “some” people seem to get approval (or not) with little justification. He said, “It sometimes make you wonder, just a little, if something “else” is going on”. I could not agree more. Of course, when it came time to vote, he voted to overrule the recommendation. (that was the burial)
Enough of the cuteness. The above is probably not near as “cute” as I thought when I wrote it.
Mr. Gahan is an intelligent man. I am willing to write off last night as a fluke or a just a plain mistake. I believe fairness dictates that anyone speaking for or against a proposal should be allowed to speak in the same portion of the meeting. The discussion period, before a vote, should only be for discussion among the Council and any questions they may have of the parties involved. Set it up correctly and it will help eliminate the errors of last night and make it more fair for everyone involved.
Mr. Price, just what “else” was going on with you? Really, I don’t think he is dishonest. He does seem like a nice guy but I am sure he doesn’t even see how ironic his statement and his vote is.
The pawn shop variance or rezoning (even debate about that last night) failed on a 5-3 vote. Messer, McLaughlin, and Price voting to allow the pawn shop. Mr. Naville may have lost it for the pawn shop. His final statement basically accused the Council of not doing their jobs and just being a “rubberstamp” if they didn’t vote in his client’s favor. He was very strong about it. In reality, I doubt that his ”accusation” lost it, anymore than my earlier statements against the variance won it. The votes did not change from the previous vote on this issue. Why in the world we would eliminate land from the industrial base just baffles me. I am just waiting for any of the 3 to mention the lack of industrial space in future meetings.
Praise, burial, comedy, masquerading. All happened last night at the Common Council meeting.
First, there was a “comedy” as I read the agenda. An old cover letter was inadvertently used and was “signed” by Larry Kochert. The comedy, it turns out, foreshadowed a masquerade by Council President Gahan. Mr. Naville, attorney for the pawn shop, rose to speak during the Council’s discussion and question phase, after failing to be present at the earlier “agenda items” slot, for which he had signed up. It was suggested (I believe by Mr. Gahan) that Naville be allowed to speak. Mr. Bob Caesar (ain’t this great?) said, “If he speaks, they all speak.” Gahan froze for a moment and almost seemed ready to agree. Steve Price suggested that Mr. Naville could be questioned (which would be the proper way). Naville said that he was told at a previous meeting that it was better that he spoke when the ordinance came up (which, I do believe he was told). Gahan, again momentarily froze and then allowed the attorney to speak. And speak. And speak. Eerily reminiscent of some of the disorganized Council meetings under a past President.
I also come to praise Councilmember Steve Price. He made an excellent point about how “some” people seem to get approval (or not) with little justification. He said, “It sometimes make you wonder, just a little, if something “else” is going on”. I could not agree more. Of course, when it came time to vote, he voted to overrule the recommendation. (that was the burial)
Enough of the cuteness. The above is probably not near as “cute” as I thought when I wrote it.
Mr. Gahan is an intelligent man. I am willing to write off last night as a fluke or a just a plain mistake. I believe fairness dictates that anyone speaking for or against a proposal should be allowed to speak in the same portion of the meeting. The discussion period, before a vote, should only be for discussion among the Council and any questions they may have of the parties involved. Set it up correctly and it will help eliminate the errors of last night and make it more fair for everyone involved.
Mr. Price, just what “else” was going on with you? Really, I don’t think he is dishonest. He does seem like a nice guy but I am sure he doesn’t even see how ironic his statement and his vote is.
The pawn shop variance or rezoning (even debate about that last night) failed on a 5-3 vote. Messer, McLaughlin, and Price voting to allow the pawn shop. Mr. Naville may have lost it for the pawn shop. His final statement basically accused the Council of not doing their jobs and just being a “rubberstamp” if they didn’t vote in his client’s favor. He was very strong about it. In reality, I doubt that his ”accusation” lost it, anymore than my earlier statements against the variance won it. The votes did not change from the previous vote on this issue. Why in the world we would eliminate land from the industrial base just baffles me. I am just waiting for any of the 3 to mention the lack of industrial space in future meetings.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
When the Mayor's Away...
It didn't compare to the days of yesteryear, but the City Council put on one of its better shows to date on Thursday night.
In one instance, a divided council failed to settle a zoning matter of some importance, with the excuse given that the deadline for action remains more than 30 days off.
In another, the council declined to take up a $5,000 tax abatement for a regional company that is currently paying more than $10,000 in income taxes to Jeffersontown, Ky. and far more than $10,000 to Metro Louisville. This from a company with 100 employees (at least a fifth of whom are Floyd County residents) that promises to increase its payroll by another 20. Good jobs? It's reasonable to assume that these new employees alone would make at least $50,000 a year. Oh, and all they want is a $5,000 first-year abatement of taxes on an industrial park building that has been vacant for at least five years.
The most intriguing legislative action of the evening was the unanimous rubber-stamping of a Floyd County ordinance raising the annual restaurant permit fee. Even the smallest food service establishment (something like the breakfast bar at the Hampton Inn) would now be required to pay $125 each year to remain in business. Inspections that result in violations and that require repeat visits could cause those small establishments to be "fined" half of that again.
Consulting the 2002 economic census data, New Albany has about 140 establishments that you would ordinarily consider to be subject to health department food regulation. Restaurants, bars, convenience stores, groceries, bars, bakeries, confectionaries and ice cream shops that you and I would all want to be inspected. Then, of course, the Health Department has to guard us against food poisoning at fall's Harvest Homecoming! and similar temporary vending opportunities.
Like you, I suspect, I wondered why in the world the city council would even be addressing an ordinance regulating food services when it is a Floyd County Health Department function. A cursory investigation indicates that within the incorporated limits of New Albany, the city has exclusive and dominant jurisdiction unless it explicitly delegates it to the county. I can't verify that, but I have no reason to doubt that.
The city council rapidly ratified the county's new ordinance - unanimously and without debate. The Pride of the 3rd District indicated his wish that restaurant inspection fees be used to fund city mosquito abatement efforts. The health department majordomo replied that he wanted the city to pay for same. D4 added his two cents, making it clear that he wasn't going to be happy if the county health department didn't do something in his home district, and soon.
Shadow5's question is this: What in tarnation do restaurant permit fees have to do with skeeter abatement?
But more seriously, how does the health department justify imposing a minimum $125 annual fee for restaurant inspections. Fees should have a rational basis to the cost of the service rendered, a service rendered primarily to the public, but also to the dining establishments.
What I can't figure out is the rationality of this fee increase. Combined with a recent sales tax increase that is decimating our local economy, not to mention a property tax "relief" program that dumps the cost of government onto businesses at a ratio of three to one, it seems clear that Indiana, Floyd County, and New Albany are bound and determined to drive business away, making New Albany nothing more than a bedroom for a vital and growing Louisville.
If you guys want that, keep supporting current policies. Then see how easy it is to fight crime, pave the streets, and pick up the garbage on residential taxes alone. Spend your consumer taxes across the river, 'cuz the Mitch Daniels program is explicitly one that says to businesses, "Go away!"
Mr. Robert Caesar, tyro council member representing the 2nd District, had his finest moment in espousing his reasons for opposing the wrecking of the existing zoning along the light-industrial zone north of Mt. Tabor Road. His logical stance for maintaining the integrity of that zone, supported by the negative recommendation of the Plan Commission, carried the day, although a third reading on approval/denial of a PUD district remains on the docket.
THIS is what's so great about watching the sausage-making that is city government. Jack Messer (CM At-Large), a man for whom we have the greatest respect, has judged the current zoning to be unreasonable. Mr. Caesar, for whom we have held great hopes, believes otherwise. Dan Coffey, with whom we can reliably be counted on to disagree, actually deferred to the strong recommendation of city staff in voting to deny the rezoning. And D5, Diane McCartin-Benedetti, citing no rationale, said throw the zoning to the wind and let a struggling pawn shop set up on a backwater road a few hundred feet from appropriate commercially zoned land.
Mr. Price, the suspect D3, chairs the council committee on tax abatements (quelle surprise) and is blocking the tax abatement for "vacant" building purchases recently authorized by Indiana statute. Having learned that givebacks were legal, he instructed Deputy Mayor Carl Malysz to develop a full-blown program for "voluntary" contributions in exchange for abatements before the next council meeting (May 8? May 12?).
Mr. Malysz, as diplomatically as he could, said it was his greatest hope that such a feat were possible, and, dejectedly, sat down.
Will greed derail the recruitment of the employer of 100+ tradespeople?
In one instance, a divided council failed to settle a zoning matter of some importance, with the excuse given that the deadline for action remains more than 30 days off.
In another, the council declined to take up a $5,000 tax abatement for a regional company that is currently paying more than $10,000 in income taxes to Jeffersontown, Ky. and far more than $10,000 to Metro Louisville. This from a company with 100 employees (at least a fifth of whom are Floyd County residents) that promises to increase its payroll by another 20. Good jobs? It's reasonable to assume that these new employees alone would make at least $50,000 a year. Oh, and all they want is a $5,000 first-year abatement of taxes on an industrial park building that has been vacant for at least five years.
The most intriguing legislative action of the evening was the unanimous rubber-stamping of a Floyd County ordinance raising the annual restaurant permit fee. Even the smallest food service establishment (something like the breakfast bar at the Hampton Inn) would now be required to pay $125 each year to remain in business. Inspections that result in violations and that require repeat visits could cause those small establishments to be "fined" half of that again.
Consulting the 2002 economic census data, New Albany has about 140 establishments that you would ordinarily consider to be subject to health department food regulation. Restaurants, bars, convenience stores, groceries, bars, bakeries, confectionaries and ice cream shops that you and I would all want to be inspected. Then, of course, the Health Department has to guard us against food poisoning at fall's Harvest Homecoming! and similar temporary vending opportunities.
Like you, I suspect, I wondered why in the world the city council would even be addressing an ordinance regulating food services when it is a Floyd County Health Department function. A cursory investigation indicates that within the incorporated limits of New Albany, the city has exclusive and dominant jurisdiction unless it explicitly delegates it to the county. I can't verify that, but I have no reason to doubt that.
The city council rapidly ratified the county's new ordinance - unanimously and without debate. The Pride of the 3rd District indicated his wish that restaurant inspection fees be used to fund city mosquito abatement efforts. The health department majordomo replied that he wanted the city to pay for same. D4 added his two cents, making it clear that he wasn't going to be happy if the county health department didn't do something in his home district, and soon.
Shadow5's question is this: What in tarnation do restaurant permit fees have to do with skeeter abatement?
But more seriously, how does the health department justify imposing a minimum $125 annual fee for restaurant inspections. Fees should have a rational basis to the cost of the service rendered, a service rendered primarily to the public, but also to the dining establishments.
What I can't figure out is the rationality of this fee increase. Combined with a recent sales tax increase that is decimating our local economy, not to mention a property tax "relief" program that dumps the cost of government onto businesses at a ratio of three to one, it seems clear that Indiana, Floyd County, and New Albany are bound and determined to drive business away, making New Albany nothing more than a bedroom for a vital and growing Louisville.
If you guys want that, keep supporting current policies. Then see how easy it is to fight crime, pave the streets, and pick up the garbage on residential taxes alone. Spend your consumer taxes across the river, 'cuz the Mitch Daniels program is explicitly one that says to businesses, "Go away!"
Mr. Robert Caesar, tyro council member representing the 2nd District, had his finest moment in espousing his reasons for opposing the wrecking of the existing zoning along the light-industrial zone north of Mt. Tabor Road. His logical stance for maintaining the integrity of that zone, supported by the negative recommendation of the Plan Commission, carried the day, although a third reading on approval/denial of a PUD district remains on the docket.
THIS is what's so great about watching the sausage-making that is city government. Jack Messer (CM At-Large), a man for whom we have the greatest respect, has judged the current zoning to be unreasonable. Mr. Caesar, for whom we have held great hopes, believes otherwise. Dan Coffey, with whom we can reliably be counted on to disagree, actually deferred to the strong recommendation of city staff in voting to deny the rezoning. And D5, Diane McCartin-Benedetti, citing no rationale, said throw the zoning to the wind and let a struggling pawn shop set up on a backwater road a few hundred feet from appropriate commercially zoned land.
Mr. Price, the suspect D3, chairs the council committee on tax abatements (quelle surprise) and is blocking the tax abatement for "vacant" building purchases recently authorized by Indiana statute. Having learned that givebacks were legal, he instructed Deputy Mayor Carl Malysz to develop a full-blown program for "voluntary" contributions in exchange for abatements before the next council meeting (May 8? May 12?).
Mr. Malysz, as diplomatically as he could, said it was his greatest hope that such a feat were possible, and, dejectedly, sat down.
Will greed derail the recruitment of the employer of 100+ tradespeople?
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, January 18, 2008
How Shadow5 Would Have Voted: Jan. 17, 2008
The original post has been corrected by the editor.
As promised, here is how this shadow (S5) would have voted. Included, to the best of our recollection, is the corresponding vote by Diane McCartin-Benedetti (D5).
A-08-02 to eliminate the $30,00 line item for a superintendent for the Fairview Cemetery.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
A-08-03 to create two deputy mayor positions, an assistant director of operations/IT chief, a public works superintendent, and a concentrated codes enforcement officer.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Nay
R-08-02 to enter into a consent decree to establish a committee of members and plaintiffs to recommend a lawful redrawing of legislative districts and to terminate current litigation.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
R-08-03 to pay from "Riverboat Fund" to digitize city zoning maps.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
R-08-04 to dismiss the council lawsuit against the sewer board and the stormwater board.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
G-08-01 to authorize economic development bonds for Ohio Valley Door.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
G-08-02 to create a 3-member sewer board. a) to suspend the rules and permit all three readings in one meeting; b) to create a 3-member board.
S5 - a) No, b) Aye; D5 - a) no vote, b) Aye
The chart originally and erroneously reported the D5 had voted in favor of the salaries to fund a mayor's office reorganization. Because we differed in our position, a brief explanation is in order. The mayor's office can use all the brain power it can get. These are working positions, not lofty pie-eyed think tank jobs. The last mayor suffered from a too-lean staff. The mayor will be held responsible by the electorate if his staff don't perform, and the necessary money was found without damaging existing services. We believe D5 was making a statement, laying down a marker. We would invite her to clarify just what that statement was and whether she was voting "Nay" on procedural grounds or on the merits. When you're being outvoted 7-2, little harm comes from a "statement" vote intended as a signal to colleagues or constituents. When Steve Price is the only one joining you, though, it might be a little more important to make that signal clear.
As promised, here is how this shadow (S5) would have voted. Included, to the best of our recollection, is the corresponding vote by Diane McCartin-Benedetti (D5).
A-08-02 to eliminate the $30,00 line item for a superintendent for the Fairview Cemetery.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
A-08-03 to create two deputy mayor positions, an assistant director of operations/IT chief, a public works superintendent, and a concentrated codes enforcement officer.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Nay
R-08-02 to enter into a consent decree to establish a committee of members and plaintiffs to recommend a lawful redrawing of legislative districts and to terminate current litigation.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
R-08-03 to pay from "Riverboat Fund" to digitize city zoning maps.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
R-08-04 to dismiss the council lawsuit against the sewer board and the stormwater board.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
G-08-01 to authorize economic development bonds for Ohio Valley Door.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye
G-08-02 to create a 3-member sewer board. a) to suspend the rules and permit all three readings in one meeting; b) to create a 3-member board.
S5 - a) No, b) Aye; D5 - a) no vote, b) Aye
The chart originally and erroneously reported the D5 had voted in favor of the salaries to fund a mayor's office reorganization. Because we differed in our position, a brief explanation is in order. The mayor's office can use all the brain power it can get. These are working positions, not lofty pie-eyed think tank jobs. The last mayor suffered from a too-lean staff. The mayor will be held responsible by the electorate if his staff don't perform, and the necessary money was found without damaging existing services. We believe D5 was making a statement, laying down a marker. We would invite her to clarify just what that statement was and whether she was voting "Nay" on procedural grounds or on the merits. When you're being outvoted 7-2, little harm comes from a "statement" vote intended as a signal to colleagues or constituents. When Steve Price is the only one joining you, though, it might be a little more important to make that signal clear.
Monday, January 14, 2008
A Tough One
Last Thursday I was privileged to attend what turned out to be a tremendously enlightening forum on the future of our city. In particular, the forum addressed the current state of law enforcement in New Albany and some potential solutions to the accelerating decline in public safety that we face.
In the aftermath, I've conferred with a number of others who attended the forum and we've agreed on one thing: it would be awfully hard to convey the import of that evening in even a month of blog postings. First, a little background.
New Albany police officers, acting as members of the Fraternal Order of Police, Lee Deich Lodge 99 (FOP), presented what can only be called a "state of the city" report. Lodge president Paul Haub, a city detective, was joined by shift commanders Julie Condra and Eric Higdon and detective Carrie East. Their report was couched in terms of solutions, but was nonetheless jolting.
Many of us had become aware of portions of the dismal diagnosis of the current state of public safety, but none of us had ever been given the opportunity to hear such a comprehensive exposition of the deteriorating state of affairs and the difficult choices we, as a city, must face in the coming months and years.
The overriding sentiment of the attendees was that more, many more people needed to hear this presentation. We were assured that such opportunities would occur.
It is remarkable that such a presentation had never been made before in such a public way. The FOP leadership, during the past 18 months, recognized that much of what they "knew" had never been shared with the residents of New Albany, the people most affected by the structural and political impediments to modern law enforcement.
The FOP, which serves as the collective bargaining unit, or union, for our police force, recognized that it had become imperative to make the public aware of these critical deficiencies.
Traditionally, the city executive and force leadership demurred from frank talk, at least in public, about these problems. It was believed, perhaps rightly, that blunt discussion of the problems the NAPD faces might reflect badly, that it might lead to a belief that our force was failing to perform its job. It is to the credit of the incoming administration, and particularly new chief Greg Crabtree, and the union that these serving officers were permitted, indeed encouraged, to engage in this serious educational effort.
This blogger would be doing a disservice to try to relay all that was learned. May I just say this: You MUST take advantage of the next opportunity to hear this presentation, which we are assured will come. Hearing it from me won't have nearly the impact it will have once you've heard it from our line officers.
But I will try to give you a few highlights so you can decide for yourself if it's worth your time.
The Tribune reported recently that the national average force strength for municipal law enforcement agencies is 2.4 officers per 1,000 in population. For New Albany, measured against the most recent U.S. Census department estimate of ~37,000 residents, that would translate into 88 officers. That counts Ottumwa, Iowa and Berkeley, California. It includes Atlanta, Georgia and Midway, Kentucky.
Do you know the current force complement of New Albany's police department? 55 officers. By the time you read this, the number might be nearer to 60 officers. Add three in senior management (chief, assistant chief, and major) and you get to 63. Consider that half a score of officers are expected to retire within the next three years and you begin to see that New Albany has, through design or neglect, decided over the past decades to divert resources from law enforcement. That must change.
It is often bandied about that New Albany's police force is "the highest-paid force in the state of Indiana." Not true. Not even close. It might have been true for a year or two in the 90s, but it is no longer the case.
Consider that these 55 officers, or 55 plus a few more first-year officers, must cover 21 shifts each week, holidays, weekends, what have you. Consider further that each of these officers is entitled to vacations of up to four weeks, comp time, personal time, holiday time, and convalescent leave when injured, and the complement is further reduced.
For the sake of argument, let's say that 50 officers are available during any given week. With 21 shifts to cover, that means these 50 officers can provide 250 shifts a week. Divide by 21 and you get something like 12 officers per shift. But even our restricted force is organized to have evidence technicians, shift supervisors, and an investigative corps of detectives. Subtract a few undercover officers and you quickly see that on any given shift on any given day, New Albany is served by about 7 cops. That's seven available to respond to traffic accidents, traffic enforcement, domestic disturbances, assaults, rapes, robberies, and burglaries. Major cases don't happen every day, but those impose an added burden on the force structure.
We, the civilians, might argue whether that is enough for a city like ours. But there is one group in our midst that has made its decision. That group has decided that New Albany is underpoliced.
That group knows that New Albany's residents and New Albany's leaders have decided that 55 or 60 officers is enough. They know better.
Our lack of seriousness about making New Albany safe and law-abiding has put out the welcome mat to lawbreakers.
I think it's fair to say that in much the way that New Albany has figuratively put out a sign welcoming sprawl and another sign welcoming slumlords, it has invested in neon signage that says "Welcom Crimnals." Typo intended.
Don't take my word for it. Seek out an officer (off-duty, please) and ask him or her whether the trend for crime in New Albany, if all things remain the same, is positive or otherwise.
I'll concede that skepticism is legitimate. It's remotely possible that someone could argue in support of the current "getting-by" approach to law enforcement.
We were surprised (and you will be, too) by who among our elected leaders have gotten the message. We have no reason to believe they have found a solution yet. It will take creativity and boldness and great courage to change the direction. But I came away convinced that there is hope that New Albany can become a haven, a relatively crime-free sanctuary, and a peaceful, thriving city with an unlimited future.
We are not that city today. How you respond in the next few months will make all the difference.
NA Shadow Council will be sure to pass on the dates of future FOP public appearances. It's up to you whether you avail yourself of the opportunity to confront the reality.
In the aftermath, I've conferred with a number of others who attended the forum and we've agreed on one thing: it would be awfully hard to convey the import of that evening in even a month of blog postings. First, a little background.
New Albany police officers, acting as members of the Fraternal Order of Police, Lee Deich Lodge 99 (FOP), presented what can only be called a "state of the city" report. Lodge president Paul Haub, a city detective, was joined by shift commanders Julie Condra and Eric Higdon and detective Carrie East. Their report was couched in terms of solutions, but was nonetheless jolting.
Many of us had become aware of portions of the dismal diagnosis of the current state of public safety, but none of us had ever been given the opportunity to hear such a comprehensive exposition of the deteriorating state of affairs and the difficult choices we, as a city, must face in the coming months and years.
The overriding sentiment of the attendees was that more, many more people needed to hear this presentation. We were assured that such opportunities would occur.
It is remarkable that such a presentation had never been made before in such a public way. The FOP leadership, during the past 18 months, recognized that much of what they "knew" had never been shared with the residents of New Albany, the people most affected by the structural and political impediments to modern law enforcement.
The FOP, which serves as the collective bargaining unit, or union, for our police force, recognized that it had become imperative to make the public aware of these critical deficiencies.
Traditionally, the city executive and force leadership demurred from frank talk, at least in public, about these problems. It was believed, perhaps rightly, that blunt discussion of the problems the NAPD faces might reflect badly, that it might lead to a belief that our force was failing to perform its job. It is to the credit of the incoming administration, and particularly new chief Greg Crabtree, and the union that these serving officers were permitted, indeed encouraged, to engage in this serious educational effort.
This blogger would be doing a disservice to try to relay all that was learned. May I just say this: You MUST take advantage of the next opportunity to hear this presentation, which we are assured will come. Hearing it from me won't have nearly the impact it will have once you've heard it from our line officers.
But I will try to give you a few highlights so you can decide for yourself if it's worth your time.
The Tribune reported recently that the national average force strength for municipal law enforcement agencies is 2.4 officers per 1,000 in population. For New Albany, measured against the most recent U.S. Census department estimate of ~37,000 residents, that would translate into 88 officers. That counts Ottumwa, Iowa and Berkeley, California. It includes Atlanta, Georgia and Midway, Kentucky.
Do you know the current force complement of New Albany's police department? 55 officers. By the time you read this, the number might be nearer to 60 officers. Add three in senior management (chief, assistant chief, and major) and you get to 63. Consider that half a score of officers are expected to retire within the next three years and you begin to see that New Albany has, through design or neglect, decided over the past decades to divert resources from law enforcement. That must change.
It is often bandied about that New Albany's police force is "the highest-paid force in the state of Indiana." Not true. Not even close. It might have been true for a year or two in the 90s, but it is no longer the case.
Consider that these 55 officers, or 55 plus a few more first-year officers, must cover 21 shifts each week, holidays, weekends, what have you. Consider further that each of these officers is entitled to vacations of up to four weeks, comp time, personal time, holiday time, and convalescent leave when injured, and the complement is further reduced.
For the sake of argument, let's say that 50 officers are available during any given week. With 21 shifts to cover, that means these 50 officers can provide 250 shifts a week. Divide by 21 and you get something like 12 officers per shift. But even our restricted force is organized to have evidence technicians, shift supervisors, and an investigative corps of detectives. Subtract a few undercover officers and you quickly see that on any given shift on any given day, New Albany is served by about 7 cops. That's seven available to respond to traffic accidents, traffic enforcement, domestic disturbances, assaults, rapes, robberies, and burglaries. Major cases don't happen every day, but those impose an added burden on the force structure.
We, the civilians, might argue whether that is enough for a city like ours. But there is one group in our midst that has made its decision. That group has decided that New Albany is underpoliced.
That group knows that New Albany's residents and New Albany's leaders have decided that 55 or 60 officers is enough. They know better.
Our lack of seriousness about making New Albany safe and law-abiding has put out the welcome mat to lawbreakers.
I think it's fair to say that in much the way that New Albany has figuratively put out a sign welcoming sprawl and another sign welcoming slumlords, it has invested in neon signage that says "Welcom Crimnals." Typo intended.
Don't take my word for it. Seek out an officer (off-duty, please) and ask him or her whether the trend for crime in New Albany, if all things remain the same, is positive or otherwise.
I'll concede that skepticism is legitimate. It's remotely possible that someone could argue in support of the current "getting-by" approach to law enforcement.
We were surprised (and you will be, too) by who among our elected leaders have gotten the message. We have no reason to believe they have found a solution yet. It will take creativity and boldness and great courage to change the direction. But I came away convinced that there is hope that New Albany can become a haven, a relatively crime-free sanctuary, and a peaceful, thriving city with an unlimited future.
We are not that city today. How you respond in the next few months will make all the difference.
NA Shadow Council will be sure to pass on the dates of future FOP public appearances. It's up to you whether you avail yourself of the opportunity to confront the reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)