Maybe you don't care. So be it. But if you do...
We were present at the premier campaign event of the 2007 mayoral campaign, the serial debate between the mayoral candidates of each primary party. Other witnesses will attest in affirmation that our current mayor voluntarily expressed his intention to make two-way streets in the downtown area his No. 1 priority.
We take campaign promises seriously here at NA Shadow Council.
With the exception of the prescient purchase of the Baptist Tabernacle on 4th Street, and the possible survival of the workplace smoking ban, we can't identify an appreciable accomplishment by this administration from January to date. Forgive us...the intensive yard-waste cleanup of July-August is appreciated. Thanks, Mickey.
In the meantime, with global warming intensifying, we have streets that need mowing, God forbid. The code enforcement officer is barred from enforcing city ordinances at commercial properties, leading to at least one "Felix Unger" to community standards and basic health standards.
We're waiting. Is this England incarnation "more of the same," or is it truly an administration that seeks to make us proud?
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
No Council Member Left Behind
We're not fans of the NCLB Act so rigidly administered by our anti-education President, but in the spirit of the Bush era and in honor of the start of the new school year, let's evaluate the performance of District 5's self-declared Democrat Diane McCartin-Benedetti, perhaps the only person remaining in the 21st Century who still bears a grudge against Muhammad Ali, for her first 8 months of service.
We understand that D5 has enlisted at least one lobbyist to advocate for "easy grading," but we aren't prepared to relegate DMB to the short bus just yet. She should, for the time being at least, despite the urgings of the her "press" agent, be evaluated on the same basis as we would evaluate the rest of her colleagues.
Mrs. Benedetti may well be a nice person. We don't have any objective evidence to the contrary. So this interim "grading" has nothing to do with her personality. Rather, it is about her performance, as demonstrated in her votes and her contributions to city council debate.
When the shadow began this blog, one aspect of the reportage was intended to be a vote by vote comparison. This is not that. Considering that this has been a passive legislative year and that the current council hasn't even passed a budget, the data set is too small to be meaningful, although it is fair to say that the simulated voting record of S5 diverges from that of D5.
We aren't, today, evaluating the strengths or weaknesses of the reasoning demonstrated in debate, either. Suffice it to say that it is not the member's strong point.
So how can we best evaluate the council member?
It's our blog, so we've chosen to use one of Thursday night's invisible votes, an appropriations ordinance sponsored by Mrs. McCartin-Benedetti.
It went unnoticed because the room emptied out promptly after the passage of the "New Albany Smoke-Free Air Act." (By the way, so long everybody. We'll be watching the real work of the council on your behalf while you go back to ignoring it.)
The ordinance proposed is styled "A-08-05," and appropriates $250,000 from the city's "Riverboat" fund for less than specific purposes. The council engaged in serious debate, albeit in the presence of a precious few observers. Whether all or just a portion of the appropriation is ultimately spent, it represents a non-budgeted expenditure and requires both council passage on three readings, but also a sign-off from the state DLGF. Because it is supplemental, it takes significantly longer to "deliver" the money into the controller's...er...control.
A principled debate ensued, led, remarkably, by Mr. Price (D3, no discernable party affiliation). While the administration and the council have definite plans for the expenditure of $60K of that money, the remaining $190K is being appropriated with no certain intention.
Although the ordinance passed on first reading, it passed only narrowly. And though the debate was brief, and though the inevitable grandstandng was delivered from the usual suspects, it was actually promising and revealing.
What it revealed about D5 is something we'd suspected, but only now feel comfortable in reporting.
Mrs. B has been co-opted. Whatever it is that the administration has planned for this money, Diane McCartin-Benedetti is their agent in place on the council. We understand that D5 is working hard to educate herself about the job she finds herself elected to. We further understand that she is a frequent "student" at the knee of city controller Kay Garry.
We also believe she has unwittingly (a bad quality in a sovereignly elected official) become a pawn in another edition of New Albany's complex and opaque game of "cups and balls."
That is the behind-the-scenes legerdemain of magically "finding" funds to further the administration's aims whether the council is aware of it or not.
Make no mistake, the brief debate on this supplemental appropriation was remarkable. Gonder, Gahan, Price, and Coffey objected to the "blank check" approach. Messer, Caesar, McLaughlin, Zurschmiede, and D5 saw no problem with it.
I suspect that each had a different reason for supporting or opposing the request on first reading. Some were asserting a prerogative and using a procedural argument to say "we won't make it easy" for the mayor. It was, in a sense, a way to say "don't keep us in the dark." Of course, Price is locked into a permanent, unreasoning "no on spending" stance, but the other three "nay" votes clearly had a pointed reason for voting that way.
Mrs. B was unable and unwilling to give any argument for why she put the measure forward; nor would she justify it; neither would she consent to an amendment in the amount.
We surmise, with confidence, that D5 has so fallen under the influence of her mentor, Mrs. Garry, that if Kay (who, remember, works for the mayor) says this is the way to do it, Diane does it.
That's simply unacceptable in an independently elected representative. You can't blame Mrs. Garry. You can't blame Doug England or Carl Malysz. But you can, and we will, blame D5 for uncritically forwarding what can be called a "fast break" and then being unable or unwilling to defend it.
Diane McCartin-Benedetti has shown no progress during her eight-month tenure. While social promotion may be tenable for some other council members, D5, for the good of the city, for the good of the 5th District, and for her own good, should be held back, and pending improvement or lack thereof over the next four months, could be considered for assignment to the special ed class along with D3 Mr. Price.
What delays this assignment is the earnest, if less than astute "hiring" by D5 of a press agent. It shows a certain amount of cunning and understanding on her part. Unfortunately for her, exposing her lapses in performance is not the exclusive purview of the papers.
Here's one way for D5 to advance to the next level: Introduce and fight for an ordinance that draws equal legislative districts. And introduce it NOW. It is, inarguably, a duty mandated by the legislature (not to mention The Constitution of the United States), an integral part of her sworn oath of office, and an act that if declined, constitutes statutory failure to perform the duties of office, forfeiture of office and remuneration therefor.
We understand that D5 has enlisted at least one lobbyist to advocate for "easy grading," but we aren't prepared to relegate DMB to the short bus just yet. She should, for the time being at least, despite the urgings of the her "press" agent, be evaluated on the same basis as we would evaluate the rest of her colleagues.
Mrs. Benedetti may well be a nice person. We don't have any objective evidence to the contrary. So this interim "grading" has nothing to do with her personality. Rather, it is about her performance, as demonstrated in her votes and her contributions to city council debate.
When the shadow began this blog, one aspect of the reportage was intended to be a vote by vote comparison. This is not that. Considering that this has been a passive legislative year and that the current council hasn't even passed a budget, the data set is too small to be meaningful, although it is fair to say that the simulated voting record of S5 diverges from that of D5.
We aren't, today, evaluating the strengths or weaknesses of the reasoning demonstrated in debate, either. Suffice it to say that it is not the member's strong point.
So how can we best evaluate the council member?
It's our blog, so we've chosen to use one of Thursday night's invisible votes, an appropriations ordinance sponsored by Mrs. McCartin-Benedetti.
It went unnoticed because the room emptied out promptly after the passage of the "New Albany Smoke-Free Air Act." (By the way, so long everybody. We'll be watching the real work of the council on your behalf while you go back to ignoring it.)
The ordinance proposed is styled "A-08-05," and appropriates $250,000 from the city's "Riverboat" fund for less than specific purposes. The council engaged in serious debate, albeit in the presence of a precious few observers. Whether all or just a portion of the appropriation is ultimately spent, it represents a non-budgeted expenditure and requires both council passage on three readings, but also a sign-off from the state DLGF. Because it is supplemental, it takes significantly longer to "deliver" the money into the controller's...er...control.
A principled debate ensued, led, remarkably, by Mr. Price (D3, no discernable party affiliation). While the administration and the council have definite plans for the expenditure of $60K of that money, the remaining $190K is being appropriated with no certain intention.
Although the ordinance passed on first reading, it passed only narrowly. And though the debate was brief, and though the inevitable grandstandng was delivered from the usual suspects, it was actually promising and revealing.
What it revealed about D5 is something we'd suspected, but only now feel comfortable in reporting.
Mrs. B has been co-opted. Whatever it is that the administration has planned for this money, Diane McCartin-Benedetti is their agent in place on the council. We understand that D5 is working hard to educate herself about the job she finds herself elected to. We further understand that she is a frequent "student" at the knee of city controller Kay Garry.
We also believe she has unwittingly (a bad quality in a sovereignly elected official) become a pawn in another edition of New Albany's complex and opaque game of "cups and balls."
That is the behind-the-scenes legerdemain of magically "finding" funds to further the administration's aims whether the council is aware of it or not.
Make no mistake, the brief debate on this supplemental appropriation was remarkable. Gonder, Gahan, Price, and Coffey objected to the "blank check" approach. Messer, Caesar, McLaughlin, Zurschmiede, and D5 saw no problem with it.
I suspect that each had a different reason for supporting or opposing the request on first reading. Some were asserting a prerogative and using a procedural argument to say "we won't make it easy" for the mayor. It was, in a sense, a way to say "don't keep us in the dark." Of course, Price is locked into a permanent, unreasoning "no on spending" stance, but the other three "nay" votes clearly had a pointed reason for voting that way.
Mrs. B was unable and unwilling to give any argument for why she put the measure forward; nor would she justify it; neither would she consent to an amendment in the amount.
We surmise, with confidence, that D5 has so fallen under the influence of her mentor, Mrs. Garry, that if Kay (who, remember, works for the mayor) says this is the way to do it, Diane does it.
That's simply unacceptable in an independently elected representative. You can't blame Mrs. Garry. You can't blame Doug England or Carl Malysz. But you can, and we will, blame D5 for uncritically forwarding what can be called a "fast break" and then being unable or unwilling to defend it.
Diane McCartin-Benedetti has shown no progress during her eight-month tenure. While social promotion may be tenable for some other council members, D5, for the good of the city, for the good of the 5th District, and for her own good, should be held back, and pending improvement or lack thereof over the next four months, could be considered for assignment to the special ed class along with D3 Mr. Price.
What delays this assignment is the earnest, if less than astute "hiring" by D5 of a press agent. It shows a certain amount of cunning and understanding on her part. Unfortunately for her, exposing her lapses in performance is not the exclusive purview of the papers.
Here's one way for D5 to advance to the next level: Introduce and fight for an ordinance that draws equal legislative districts. And introduce it NOW. It is, inarguably, a duty mandated by the legislature (not to mention The Constitution of the United States), an integral part of her sworn oath of office, and an act that if declined, constitutes statutory failure to perform the duties of office, forfeiture of office and remuneration therefor.
Roger Baylor for President?
Apparently, Roger's temerity in challenging the gavel of Jeff Gahan has generated a groundswell of netroots support in less than 24 hours. View this news report.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Surrealism on the Ohio
Hard to believe it has been more than two weeks since we posted here. In some respects, the laxity was generated by statements confided in us that we determined were not fodder for blogging. Although these confidences inform our understanding, we believe it would be imprudent to relate them here.
We told a gathering today that we believed that the end of the world was a provable fact...and that New Albany was simply a test market.
We (by this I mean those masochist idealists who continue to use the bi-monthly city council meetings the way the Polar Bear Society uses Lake Michigan in January) will, assuredly, witness the zeroth degree of shame demonstrated by the council on this coming evening. Enormous energies will be expended, perhaps to no effect, over an amorphous issue that finds an embittered and embattled minority up in arms. And yet, history marches onward.
In our household, we marvel at the passion and the heedless illogic displayed by the opponents of a workplace smoking ban in New Albany. On first reading, a majority of the city council approved a comprehensive ban that would take effect some time shortly after Thanksgiving, given two more affirmative votes on Thursday night.
Admittedly, passage of the ordinance would be an occasion of thanks giving, in our view. For those of us who do not smoke, dining out is a completely positive experience when done in a restaurant where smoking is prohibited.
Yes, I can eat at home. Yes, I can eat at national chain restaurants that, on the issue of smoking, "get it," even if that is an educated and calculated bottom-line decision. But why should I be discouraged from frequenting the independent restaurants and pubs I would prefer to visit and give my custom?
Yes, it's our choice. If we want to eat at Studio's or The New Albanian Pub or Federal Hill Cafe, we may. We must, of course, consume our share of second-hand smoke to do so, but it is our choice.
According to The Tribune, 57% of New Albanians over the age of 18 favor a ban on workplace smoking, as reported by an "unscientific" poll. A more rigorous scientific poll says 68% of New Albanians favor it. We favor it.
But we simply don't understand the passion this "issue" evokes.
We wrote recently at salon.com about how we believe that incalculable damage will be done to our local economy by refraining from passing this ordinance; can you imagine how backward would be the city who was the last in the nation to prohibit smoking in the workplace?
We are puzzled by that this ordinance has become, in essence, a ban on bar and restaurant smoking. But it has. And while we don't discriminate against quality establishments that allow smoking, we prefer, strenuously, those who vigorously prohibit it. And so do most of those who smoke.
At last, we come to the quality of the arguments in opposition to the ordinance.
One prolific blog commenter continues to harp on the "professionalism" (they're paid) of public health advocates, noting that the fact that they are paid to create a healthy environment somehow diminishes the quality of their arguments...that the funding for same comes from tobacco taxes and legitimate judicial settlements...It reminds us of those, like Sen. James Inhofe, who bandy about the idea that global warming is some nefarious conspiracy of ultra-liberal, hate-America cabal.
Facts are facts. Fabricated evidence isn't legitimate. Peer-reviewed studies of epidemiological data make the anti-smoking evidence undebatable. Period. Ad hominem attacks don't make the facts different.
On and on it can go, and assuredly will when the council passes a comprehensive ban on Thursday.
There will be, as there has been, interminable gum-flapping, afterward. It's kinda fun. But we can't summon the passion for the argument. We'd love to visit certain establishments more often without becoming an involuntary smoker. We applaud our representatives for legislating on the issue and would welcome a comprehensive ban.
We guarantee you that we are capable of addressing the many, many "arguments" put forward, but enough is enough. Masturbating doesn't produce progeny. And blogging doesn't produce changed minds.
That doesn't mean we will stop. Blogging, that is.
Why, Friday morning, the debate will be either 1) Why it would be foolish or wise of Mayor Doug England to veto/sign the ordinance, or 2) Why it was foolish of the council to exempt "private" clubs or public bars from the ordinance.
You see, there's plenty of time.
As an aside, we'll note that H.L. Mencken got great mileage out of ridiculing those who debated the demonstrable evidence of science and sought to legislate against it, to, in fact, attempt to hold back the tide of facts. He did not end up on the side of specious, tortured arguments. The curmudgeon did not end up on the wrong side of history.
And as a second aside, no longer does anyone rally to the idea that we may, on our private property, conduct any enterprise we wish without government regulation. It might be lucrative...it might be key to our survival...to use our property for the provision of full-body massage to release. But it ain't allowed, either by law or by zoning ordinance. We can't conduct chemical reclamation of precious metals from computer circuit boards under existing zoning ordinances, either. We can't sell merchandise without providing at least 10 off-street parking spaces.
How is that different from legislating that we can't serve alcoholic beverages or eggs and bacon where workers OR patrons are subjected to second-hand smoke?
Where were all the civil libertarians this year when the state of Indiana decided that they would determine your choice of what books you would buy? We didn't see Steve Price stepping up to challenge that "freedom of choice," which is, inarguably, much more critical to civilization than the "right" to smoke in a bar.
Where were all the civil libertarians over the past six years when the city council intentionally decided that the constitutional principle of equal representation was of no consequence?
Frankly, we say "Felix Unger" to all of you "civil libertarians" who have decided that this is the issue where you will take your stands.
We told a gathering today that we believed that the end of the world was a provable fact...and that New Albany was simply a test market.
We (by this I mean those masochist idealists who continue to use the bi-monthly city council meetings the way the Polar Bear Society uses Lake Michigan in January) will, assuredly, witness the zeroth degree of shame demonstrated by the council on this coming evening. Enormous energies will be expended, perhaps to no effect, over an amorphous issue that finds an embittered and embattled minority up in arms. And yet, history marches onward.
In our household, we marvel at the passion and the heedless illogic displayed by the opponents of a workplace smoking ban in New Albany. On first reading, a majority of the city council approved a comprehensive ban that would take effect some time shortly after Thanksgiving, given two more affirmative votes on Thursday night.
Admittedly, passage of the ordinance would be an occasion of thanks giving, in our view. For those of us who do not smoke, dining out is a completely positive experience when done in a restaurant where smoking is prohibited.
Yes, I can eat at home. Yes, I can eat at national chain restaurants that, on the issue of smoking, "get it," even if that is an educated and calculated bottom-line decision. But why should I be discouraged from frequenting the independent restaurants and pubs I would prefer to visit and give my custom?
Yes, it's our choice. If we want to eat at Studio's or The New Albanian Pub or Federal Hill Cafe, we may. We must, of course, consume our share of second-hand smoke to do so, but it is our choice.
According to The Tribune, 57% of New Albanians over the age of 18 favor a ban on workplace smoking, as reported by an "unscientific" poll. A more rigorous scientific poll says 68% of New Albanians favor it. We favor it.
But we simply don't understand the passion this "issue" evokes.
We wrote recently at salon.com about how we believe that incalculable damage will be done to our local economy by refraining from passing this ordinance; can you imagine how backward would be the city who was the last in the nation to prohibit smoking in the workplace?
We are puzzled by that this ordinance has become, in essence, a ban on bar and restaurant smoking. But it has. And while we don't discriminate against quality establishments that allow smoking, we prefer, strenuously, those who vigorously prohibit it. And so do most of those who smoke.
At last, we come to the quality of the arguments in opposition to the ordinance.
One prolific blog commenter continues to harp on the "professionalism" (they're paid) of public health advocates, noting that the fact that they are paid to create a healthy environment somehow diminishes the quality of their arguments...that the funding for same comes from tobacco taxes and legitimate judicial settlements...It reminds us of those, like Sen. James Inhofe, who bandy about the idea that global warming is some nefarious conspiracy of ultra-liberal, hate-America cabal.
Facts are facts. Fabricated evidence isn't legitimate. Peer-reviewed studies of epidemiological data make the anti-smoking evidence undebatable. Period. Ad hominem attacks don't make the facts different.
On and on it can go, and assuredly will when the council passes a comprehensive ban on Thursday.
There will be, as there has been, interminable gum-flapping, afterward. It's kinda fun. But we can't summon the passion for the argument. We'd love to visit certain establishments more often without becoming an involuntary smoker. We applaud our representatives for legislating on the issue and would welcome a comprehensive ban.
We guarantee you that we are capable of addressing the many, many "arguments" put forward, but enough is enough. Masturbating doesn't produce progeny. And blogging doesn't produce changed minds.
That doesn't mean we will stop. Blogging, that is.
Why, Friday morning, the debate will be either 1) Why it would be foolish or wise of Mayor Doug England to veto/sign the ordinance, or 2) Why it was foolish of the council to exempt "private" clubs or public bars from the ordinance.
You see, there's plenty of time.
As an aside, we'll note that H.L. Mencken got great mileage out of ridiculing those who debated the demonstrable evidence of science and sought to legislate against it, to, in fact, attempt to hold back the tide of facts. He did not end up on the side of specious, tortured arguments. The curmudgeon did not end up on the wrong side of history.
And as a second aside, no longer does anyone rally to the idea that we may, on our private property, conduct any enterprise we wish without government regulation. It might be lucrative...it might be key to our survival...to use our property for the provision of full-body massage to release. But it ain't allowed, either by law or by zoning ordinance. We can't conduct chemical reclamation of precious metals from computer circuit boards under existing zoning ordinances, either. We can't sell merchandise without providing at least 10 off-street parking spaces.
How is that different from legislating that we can't serve alcoholic beverages or eggs and bacon where workers OR patrons are subjected to second-hand smoke?
Where were all the civil libertarians this year when the state of Indiana decided that they would determine your choice of what books you would buy? We didn't see Steve Price stepping up to challenge that "freedom of choice," which is, inarguably, much more critical to civilization than the "right" to smoke in a bar.
Where were all the civil libertarians over the past six years when the city council intentionally decided that the constitutional principle of equal representation was of no consequence?
Frankly, we say "Felix Unger" to all of you "civil libertarians" who have decided that this is the issue where you will take your stands.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Quick Hits from Monday Night
Monday's City Council meeting was remarkable. For the record, the early work session saw a promising rollout of the city's plans for a comprehensive remake of ordinance enforcement, with a focus on rental housing inspections.
It seems clear that the council as a whole has adopted the progressive mantra that rental properties are BUSINESSES and should be appropriately registered and regulated.
But the big news from the evening was the passage (on first reading) of an almost-complete ban on smoking in the workplace.
As a political feat, Jeff Gahan's accomplishment is worthy of remark. Putative sponsor Bob Caesar (D2) put forward an exhaustively comprehensive ban on workplace smoking that earned the "aye" votes of Dan Coffey (D1), Pat McLaughlin (D4), John Gonder (At-large), and president Jeff Gahan (D6). If that majority holds 17 days from now, only Mayor Doug England's veto would prevent New Albany from joining the vanguard of the future in making its commercial and retail establishments smoke-free.
Thanks to New Albany Now for early returns. D5 voted no.
It seems clear that the council as a whole has adopted the progressive mantra that rental properties are BUSINESSES and should be appropriately registered and regulated.
But the big news from the evening was the passage (on first reading) of an almost-complete ban on smoking in the workplace.
As a political feat, Jeff Gahan's accomplishment is worthy of remark. Putative sponsor Bob Caesar (D2) put forward an exhaustively comprehensive ban on workplace smoking that earned the "aye" votes of Dan Coffey (D1), Pat McLaughlin (D4), John Gonder (At-large), and president Jeff Gahan (D6). If that majority holds 17 days from now, only Mayor Doug England's veto would prevent New Albany from joining the vanguard of the future in making its commercial and retail establishments smoke-free.
Thanks to New Albany Now for early returns. D5 voted no.
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?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Going Nuclear?
The following was provided to NA Shadow Council by a supporter of the lawless, rogue city council headed up by Jeff Gahan. We don't know why.
But is there any doubt that the council majority has put their jobs in jeopardy by refusing or neglecting to perform the official duties pertaining to [their] office[s]?
The way we read the statute below, there are only a few requirements to achieve a proper redistricting within about 30 days.
1. A person, any person...
2. accuses...
3. in writing...
3. and swears an oath...
4. and presents it to a circuit court...
5. alleging that Gahan, McCartin Benedetti, Coffey, McLaughlin, and Price...
6. are refusing or neglecting to perform official duties pertaining to their offices.
There remain only a few questions. Are the council members obligated to redraw legislative districts as and official duty of their offices? Yes. Have they refused or neglected to do so? Obviously. Will the stalwarts of equal representation choose the "nuclear" option and seek to have the rogue council members removed? Will the Republican prosecutor take it on his own motion to do the same?
IC 5-8-1-35
Verification of accusation; citing party; hearing; judgment
Sec. 35. (a) When an accusation in writing, verified by the oath of any person, is presented to a circuit court, alleging that any officer within the jurisdiction of the court has been guilty of:
(1) charging and collecting illegal fees for services rendered or to be rendered in his office;
(2) refusing or neglecting to perform the official duties pertaining to his office; or
(3) violating IC 36-6-4-17 (b) if the officer is the executive of a township; the court must cite the party charged to appear before the court at any time not more than ten (10) nor less than five (5) days from the time the accusation was presented, and on that day or some other subsequent day not more than twenty (20) days from the time the accusation was presented must proceed to hear, in a summary manner, the accusation and evidence offered in support of the same, and the answer and evidence offered by the party accused.
(b) If after the hearing under subsection (a) it appears that the charge is sustained, the court must do the following:
(1) Enter a decree that the party accused be deprived of his office.
(2) Enter a judgment as follows:
(A) For five hundred dollars ($500) in favor of the prosecuting officer.
(B) For costs as are allowed in civil cases.
(C) For the amount of money that was paid to the officer in compensation from the day when the accusation was filed under this section to the day when judgment is entered in favor of the public entity paying the compensation to the officer.
(c) In an action under this section, a court may award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and other reasonable expenses of litigation to the accused officer if:
(1) the officer prevails; and
(2) the court finds that the accusation is frivolous or vexatious.
But is there any doubt that the council majority has put their jobs in jeopardy by refusing or neglecting to perform the official duties pertaining to [their] office[s]?
The way we read the statute below, there are only a few requirements to achieve a proper redistricting within about 30 days.
1. A person, any person...
2. accuses...
3. in writing...
3. and swears an oath...
4. and presents it to a circuit court...
5. alleging that Gahan, McCartin Benedetti, Coffey, McLaughlin, and Price...
6. are refusing or neglecting to perform official duties pertaining to their offices.
There remain only a few questions. Are the council members obligated to redraw legislative districts as and official duty of their offices? Yes. Have they refused or neglected to do so? Obviously. Will the stalwarts of equal representation choose the "nuclear" option and seek to have the rogue council members removed? Will the Republican prosecutor take it on his own motion to do the same?
IC 5-8-1-35
Verification of accusation; citing party; hearing; judgment
Sec. 35. (a) When an accusation in writing, verified by the oath of any person, is presented to a circuit court, alleging that any officer within the jurisdiction of the court has been guilty of:
(1) charging and collecting illegal fees for services rendered or to be rendered in his office;
(2) refusing or neglecting to perform the official duties pertaining to his office; or
(3) violating IC 36-6-4-17 (b) if the officer is the executive of a township; the court must cite the party charged to appear before the court at any time not more than ten (10) nor less than five (5) days from the time the accusation was presented, and on that day or some other subsequent day not more than twenty (20) days from the time the accusation was presented must proceed to hear, in a summary manner, the accusation and evidence offered in support of the same, and the answer and evidence offered by the party accused.
(b) If after the hearing under subsection (a) it appears that the charge is sustained, the court must do the following:
(1) Enter a decree that the party accused be deprived of his office.
(2) Enter a judgment as follows:
(A) For five hundred dollars ($500) in favor of the prosecuting officer.
(B) For costs as are allowed in civil cases.
(C) For the amount of money that was paid to the officer in compensation from the day when the accusation was filed under this section to the day when judgment is entered in favor of the public entity paying the compensation to the officer.
(c) In an action under this section, a court may award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and other reasonable expenses of litigation to the accused officer if:
(1) the officer prevails; and
(2) the court finds that the accusation is frivolous or vexatious.
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
Rogue City Blues
Cuddle up a little closer, oh lovely mine
Cuddle up and be my little clinging vine
Like to feel your cheeks so rosy
Like to make you comfy cozy
Cuz I love from head to toesy
Lovely mine.
What a lovefest! Over the weekend I had an opportunity to listen to the last city council meeting. Looks like council has circled the wagons to protect each other instead of the people's equal rights.
It's hard to believe there is anyone remaining in this city who does not know that New Albany is the sole remaining holdout to the principle of equal representation. But after 26 months (and counting), the city council continues to stand four-square for unequal representation, as evidenced by their continued refusal to correct the situation with council district boundaries.
Cuddle up and be my little clinging vine
Like to feel your cheeks so rosy
Like to make you comfy cozy
Cuz I love from head to toesy
Lovely mine.
What a lovefest! Over the weekend I had an opportunity to listen to the last city council meeting. Looks like council has circled the wagons to protect each other instead of the people's equal rights.
It's hard to believe there is anyone remaining in this city who does not know that New Albany is the sole remaining holdout to the principle of equal representation. But after 26 months (and counting), the city council continues to stand four-square for unequal representation, as evidenced by their continued refusal to correct the situation with council district boundaries.
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.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Johnny, Johnny, Johnny...
Someone ought to step up and defend you against the slanders. And it ought to be someone who knows you well. Good luck on finding that defender. Guess you're on your own. We know what that's like. Kind of tough to be defending yourself for trying to uphold the law. Even when you disavow it. Kind of like Mission Impossible.
D5 seemed to enjoy herself at Thursday's meeting, giggling and grinning like the cat that ate the canary. Wonder if it will be that much fun when she finally faces the fact that she has to draw equal council districts? With Steve Price, Dan Coffey, Pat McLaughlin, and Jeff Gahan there to help you, it sounds like Mission Impossible II.
Speaking of Price, not a peep was heard from him about how the council simply had to draw new districts on Thursday night. What happened, Steve? Lost your passion?
And Pat McLaughlin seems to have lost that enthusiasm he once had when he said "I wish I could run against Steve Price."
D5 seemed to enjoy herself at Thursday's meeting, giggling and grinning like the cat that ate the canary. Wonder if it will be that much fun when she finally faces the fact that she has to draw equal council districts? With Steve Price, Dan Coffey, Pat McLaughlin, and Jeff Gahan there to help you, it sounds like Mission Impossible II.
Speaking of Price, not a peep was heard from him about how the council simply had to draw new districts on Thursday night. What happened, Steve? Lost your passion?
And Pat McLaughlin seems to have lost that enthusiasm he once had when he said "I wish I could run against Steve Price."
OK, Don't Miss THIS!
Sorry I said "Don't Miss This," because I did miss it. The Thursday night New Albany Now show never happened. But I'm told it will run on Friday evening, with callers invited. I think I'll call in. How about you?
Calling Out the Coward(s)
I'm calling you out, coward. I suggest the middle lane of East Spring Street, halfway between your place and mine.
Your handicaps, your phobias, your manias, your financial straits are no reason you can't face the music.
You are a lying coward. You pick the time.
Wonder how many will show up?
Your handicaps, your phobias, your manias, your financial straits are no reason you can't face the music.
You are a lying coward. You pick the time.
Wonder how many will show up?
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/.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Bon Voyage, Randy Stumler
The Tribune reports tonight that Floyd County Democratic Party Chairman and Floyd County Councilman Randy Stumler has resigned both posts to take an overseas employment opportunity.
Read the story at http://www.newsandtribune.com/local/local_story_196171221.html.
Best wishes to all the Stumlers in The Azores. No, really, it's not a joke.
Read the story at http://www.newsandtribune.com/local/local_story_196171221.html.
Best wishes to all the Stumlers in The Azores. No, really, it's not a joke.
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.
OMG, That's So on Point!
Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency
And Shirley Baird still includes Dan Coffey in her inventory of "beloveds" without a hint of irony? Shirl, we ha(d) such hopes for you.
Welcome New Readers!
Disingenuous - [dis-in-jen-yoo-uhs] Adjective.
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.
credit American Heritage Dictionary, Dictionary.com
Usage Note: The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people were unsure of its proper meaning. Generally, it means "insincere" and often seems to be a synonym of cynical or calculating. Not surprisingly, the word is used often in political contexts, as in It is both insensitive and disingenuous for the White House to describe its aid package and the proposal to eliminate the federal payment as "tough love." This use of the word is accepted by 94 percent of the Usage Panel...
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.
credit American Heritage Dictionary, Dictionary.com
Usage Note: The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people were unsure of its proper meaning. Generally, it means "insincere" and often seems to be a synonym of cynical or calculating. Not surprisingly, the word is used often in political contexts, as in It is both insensitive and disingenuous for the White House to describe its aid package and the proposal to eliminate the federal payment as "tough love." This use of the word is accepted by 94 percent of the Usage Panel...
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
There seems to be a move to muzzle, if not throttle, the free expression of New Albanians. According to one report, the "beloved" city council (at least its leadership and its lockstep majority) have decided that any citizen critical of their policy positions, votes, or demonstrated behavior will be shunned and labeled as being "too political."
Specifically, anyone who expresses opposition to them is disqualified from expressing an opinion. Unless you are signed on to their upcoming political campaign team, all information, opinion, or statements of fact are declared and are by definition, unsound, invalid, and downright evil.
Oh, and this stance is being taken by Democrats. Apparently, unless you voted for them and continue to support them without question, anything you have to say goes unheard. And certainly un-listened-to.
Taking a side on an issue has now become a political crime. And based on recent performance, siding with The Constitution is one of those "New Albany Political Crimes."
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
New Voice on the Air?
We received news late tonight that New Albany is going to be served by an online public affairs radio show called New Albany Now. Starting tonight (we don't know the regularity of their schedule), the online radio show begins its schedule of Webcasts.
It's apparently a call-in show instead of just a podcasted blog. If you're on the Web, you can click a button to join the conversation. If you're away from your computer, you can call a number (347) 539-5928. In a world of cell phones and cheap long distance, calling a national number shouldn't impose too much of a hardship. As a caller, you can listen to the show, too, so long as your connection is maintained.
We understand that if you miss the live broadcast, an archive will be available, so all the shows will be available for later reference. Here's a link:
This sounds like it could be a dramatic development in the coverage of public affairs. We got word about this from Randy Smith at Destinations Booksellers. He's going to be hosting the early shows, but he leaves open the possibility that other show hosts may soon join him. Destinations Booksellers is going to be underwriting some of the early costs of producing this show and receiving on-air mentions in exchange. Randy's other business, Flood Crest Press, will probably also be a sponsor. For now, we don't know of any other sponsors, but Randy says it will be a non-profit undertaking that actively seeks individual, organizational, and business sponsorships, all of whom would receive mention on the air.
Randy isn't able to tell us yet if there will be an ability to take the show out of the "studio," but it's hard not to be enthusiastic about the idea of live broadcasts of some local public meetings. Can you imagine if The New Albanian and Bluegill were able to supplement their blog by audio of the city council meetings?
Who will be listening? Who knows? We think it's a great idea, and we encourage our readers to take the time to call in to ask questions or express their opinions.
It's apparently a call-in show instead of just a podcasted blog. If you're on the Web, you can click a button to join the conversation. If you're away from your computer, you can call a number (347) 539-5928. In a world of cell phones and cheap long distance, calling a national number shouldn't impose too much of a hardship. As a caller, you can listen to the show, too, so long as your connection is maintained.
We understand that if you miss the live broadcast, an archive will be available, so all the shows will be available for later reference. Here's a link:
This sounds like it could be a dramatic development in the coverage of public affairs. We got word about this from Randy Smith at Destinations Booksellers. He's going to be hosting the early shows, but he leaves open the possibility that other show hosts may soon join him. Destinations Booksellers is going to be underwriting some of the early costs of producing this show and receiving on-air mentions in exchange. Randy's other business, Flood Crest Press, will probably also be a sponsor. For now, we don't know of any other sponsors, but Randy says it will be a non-profit undertaking that actively seeks individual, organizational, and business sponsorships, all of whom would receive mention on the air.
Randy isn't able to tell us yet if there will be an ability to take the show out of the "studio," but it's hard not to be enthusiastic about the idea of live broadcasts of some local public meetings. Can you imagine if The New Albanian and Bluegill were able to supplement their blog by audio of the city council meetings?
Who will be listening? Who knows? We think it's a great idea, and we encourage our readers to take the time to call in to ask questions or express their opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)