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?
Showing posts with label goons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label goons. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
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.
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.
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)