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.
Showing posts with label jack messer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jack messer. Show all posts
Thursday, August 21, 2008
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?
Thursday, July 10, 2008
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.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Shall We Dance?
In New Albany's current longest-running melodrama, Gary "The Gary" McCartin returned once again to plead with the city council to overturn the recommendation of the Plan Commission and permit him to leverage a dime or two out of a piece of land on Charlestown Road across from the Kroger grocery and the Old Mill shopping complex.
By his own testimony, "The Gary" has taken ten bites of the apple on this development, which he hopes will be the start of his comeback after one or more of his ventures resorted to the protections of 11 U.S.C. It remains unanswered whether "The Gary" actually owns the parcel(s) under zoning review or if he merely holds an option that he intends to exercise when and if he is able to corral 5 votes from the New Albany City Council.
In a defensive, yet challenging 40-minute presentation, "The Gary" pleaded his case. The totally non-conflicted D5, Diane McCartin-Benedetti, engaged her sibling in a precious back and forth Q&A that warmed the cockles of everyone in the room who had cockles, whatever those are.
But the long, lingering kiss that was D5's interrogation was upstaged by the erotic dance staged by At-Large Council Member Jack Messer and the man who when called "arrogant" responded with the query, "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?"
Messer, whose clear intent was to find a win-win outcome, chose to speak publicly to "The Gary" in a way that was probably more appropriate for a private venue. Sensing an opportunity to score points, "The Gary" chose to whip-cast for trout, but the elusive Messer, pure in heart, simply continued to offer well-meant advice that would, presumably, allow "The Gary" to achieve his objective without creating another intransigent coterie of folks all too willing to tell you what they think of the Sprawlmeister.
So you think you can dance? I hear Brazil is lovely this time of year, and the Samba Endredo is pretty easy to learn.
By his own testimony, "The Gary" has taken ten bites of the apple on this development, which he hopes will be the start of his comeback after one or more of his ventures resorted to the protections of 11 U.S.C. It remains unanswered whether "The Gary" actually owns the parcel(s) under zoning review or if he merely holds an option that he intends to exercise when and if he is able to corral 5 votes from the New Albany City Council.
In a defensive, yet challenging 40-minute presentation, "The Gary" pleaded his case. The totally non-conflicted D5, Diane McCartin-Benedetti, engaged her sibling in a precious back and forth Q&A that warmed the cockles of everyone in the room who had cockles, whatever those are.
But the long, lingering kiss that was D5's interrogation was upstaged by the erotic dance staged by At-Large Council Member Jack Messer and the man who when called "arrogant" responded with the query, "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?"
Messer, whose clear intent was to find a win-win outcome, chose to speak publicly to "The Gary" in a way that was probably more appropriate for a private venue. Sensing an opportunity to score points, "The Gary" chose to whip-cast for trout, but the elusive Messer, pure in heart, simply continued to offer well-meant advice that would, presumably, allow "The Gary" to achieve his objective without creating another intransigent coterie of folks all too willing to tell you what they think of the Sprawlmeister.
So you think you can dance? I hear Brazil is lovely this time of year, and the Samba Endredo is pretty easy to learn.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Head Games
We can't help it, but sometimes we simply have to speculate about what goes through the minds of our council members. The Lucy Van Pelt strategy used by, among others, Pat McLaughlin (D4), to yank the football from the tee just as Jack Messer prepared to kick off a new council year, positively begs for psychoanalysis. Here's my take, speculative as it is.
While I had looked forward to a council presided over by the senior at-large council member, I could never quite trust the head counts I overheard. Messer was clearly the best choice, and Jack was determined to lead the council in a focused and deliberate manner, independent of but collaborative with the incoming administration. In fact, more than one of the new council members had sought him out and encouraged him to run for president. Weeks prior to being sworn in, all the council members had the opportunity to meet and discuss goals for the next four years. Messer expected to win and was looking forward to the challenge. He was willing to step back from the debate and preside impartially. So what happened to prevent that?
McLaughlin, following the established pattern for New Albany Democrats, ran a careful, if not timid, campaign. He, on the advice of his counselors, decided to take no stands, support no positions, and promise nothing to anyone. His platform was nonexistent. Even if Pat didn't know where the middle of the road was, he was determined to find that middle and plant himself there. This seems to have carried over into his term.
Pat likes (and is liked by) practically everyone. If you've read this blog before you know I don't consider that to be a pre-eminent qualification for leadership - a person who tries to keep everybody happy ultimately satisfies no one.
Having staked out that position, Pat was supremely vulnerable to being persuaded to seek what I am sure he understands to be a compromise. It was a given that Dan Coffey and Steve Price would have cut off their hands before voting for Messer. Let's call it a violent opposition to having Jack in the chair. Three or four other council members would have gagged before voting to support Coffey. But Coffey wasn't running, at least not after he read the tea leaves.
How then, could Coffey prevent Messer's election? He couldn't run and beat him. The solution was simple, however. During the past year since Jeff Gahan stepped down from the chair and began to engage more fiercely in the debate, Coffey occasionally supported Gahan, resulting in an alliance that grew more solid during the insane attempt to give away the municipal sewer utility to an unaccountable board. Both Coffey and Gahan saw that as a way to handcuff elected officials. That it would have removed accountability to the voters was a price they were both willing to pay if it would rein in what they believed to be a secretive and corrupt operation.
Gahan and Coffey rarely came into conflict in 2007 and by the end of the term were voting in lockstep most of the time. The "reasonable" Gahan respected Coffey's legitimacy and Coffey returned that respect. That made Gahan the perfect tool to accomplish Coffey's objective of keeping Messer out of the chair.
With a candidate in place to oppose Messer, Coffey needed only to pick up one more vote (Gahan and Coffey, of course; Price, obviously; and it appears that Benedetti is determined to learn at Master Coffey's institution of "higher" learning).
Imagine, then, this confidential gathering, in twos and threes.
Jack "can't get along" with Price and Coffey (a reason to endorse, to my way of thinking, but I digress). That duo, inalterably opposed to Messer, put that forward as evidence that Jack can't "bring the council together." Well, duh! Gahan, on the other hand, hasn't opposed the dumb ideas put forward by D1 and D2. During his terms in the chair he permitted Coffey to ramble on with his "expert" opinions, his "legal expertise," his sophistry, and his demagoguery - something Messer could be counted on to put a limit on. So Price and Coffey "could" support Gahan.
Hey, Pat. You don't want to start out your term with a situation where the president doesn't have the support of the whole council, do you? Then Gahan's your man. You know him, you like him, he's pretty smart. And he's experienced. He has even been president of the council before.
So, in essence, Pat McLaughlin, hewing to the center line, fell for the oldest trick in the book.
Here's another translation: We despise Jack because he doesn't fall for our schtick. Jeff at least pretends to. So, because Jack would resist our idiocies, we should have a veto. We should be able to stop his election. You, Pat, are our patsy. With your vote, we can veto Jack. Everybody wins, because we wind up with Gahan as the compromise, and you like compromise, don't you? Why can't we all just get along?
Analyzing why Benedetti would throw away her incumbency by becoming a disciple of the Wizard of Westendia would take too long. Let's just assume she has thrown it away and start planning for 2011.
Oh yeah. John Gonder. Let no one forget that Gonder, too, cast his vote for Gahan. I have my thoughts on that one, too. But since it's raining so hard, I think I'll keep my powder dry for the time being and let John explain his vote in his own good time. Tick, tock.
While I had looked forward to a council presided over by the senior at-large council member, I could never quite trust the head counts I overheard. Messer was clearly the best choice, and Jack was determined to lead the council in a focused and deliberate manner, independent of but collaborative with the incoming administration. In fact, more than one of the new council members had sought him out and encouraged him to run for president. Weeks prior to being sworn in, all the council members had the opportunity to meet and discuss goals for the next four years. Messer expected to win and was looking forward to the challenge. He was willing to step back from the debate and preside impartially. So what happened to prevent that?
McLaughlin, following the established pattern for New Albany Democrats, ran a careful, if not timid, campaign. He, on the advice of his counselors, decided to take no stands, support no positions, and promise nothing to anyone. His platform was nonexistent. Even if Pat didn't know where the middle of the road was, he was determined to find that middle and plant himself there. This seems to have carried over into his term.
Pat likes (and is liked by) practically everyone. If you've read this blog before you know I don't consider that to be a pre-eminent qualification for leadership - a person who tries to keep everybody happy ultimately satisfies no one.
Having staked out that position, Pat was supremely vulnerable to being persuaded to seek what I am sure he understands to be a compromise. It was a given that Dan Coffey and Steve Price would have cut off their hands before voting for Messer. Let's call it a violent opposition to having Jack in the chair. Three or four other council members would have gagged before voting to support Coffey. But Coffey wasn't running, at least not after he read the tea leaves.
How then, could Coffey prevent Messer's election? He couldn't run and beat him. The solution was simple, however. During the past year since Jeff Gahan stepped down from the chair and began to engage more fiercely in the debate, Coffey occasionally supported Gahan, resulting in an alliance that grew more solid during the insane attempt to give away the municipal sewer utility to an unaccountable board. Both Coffey and Gahan saw that as a way to handcuff elected officials. That it would have removed accountability to the voters was a price they were both willing to pay if it would rein in what they believed to be a secretive and corrupt operation.
Gahan and Coffey rarely came into conflict in 2007 and by the end of the term were voting in lockstep most of the time. The "reasonable" Gahan respected Coffey's legitimacy and Coffey returned that respect. That made Gahan the perfect tool to accomplish Coffey's objective of keeping Messer out of the chair.
With a candidate in place to oppose Messer, Coffey needed only to pick up one more vote (Gahan and Coffey, of course; Price, obviously; and it appears that Benedetti is determined to learn at Master Coffey's institution of "higher" learning).
Imagine, then, this confidential gathering, in twos and threes.
Jack "can't get along" with Price and Coffey (a reason to endorse, to my way of thinking, but I digress). That duo, inalterably opposed to Messer, put that forward as evidence that Jack can't "bring the council together." Well, duh! Gahan, on the other hand, hasn't opposed the dumb ideas put forward by D1 and D2. During his terms in the chair he permitted Coffey to ramble on with his "expert" opinions, his "legal expertise," his sophistry, and his demagoguery - something Messer could be counted on to put a limit on. So Price and Coffey "could" support Gahan.
Hey, Pat. You don't want to start out your term with a situation where the president doesn't have the support of the whole council, do you? Then Gahan's your man. You know him, you like him, he's pretty smart. And he's experienced. He has even been president of the council before.
So, in essence, Pat McLaughlin, hewing to the center line, fell for the oldest trick in the book.
Here's another translation: We despise Jack because he doesn't fall for our schtick. Jeff at least pretends to. So, because Jack would resist our idiocies, we should have a veto. We should be able to stop his election. You, Pat, are our patsy. With your vote, we can veto Jack. Everybody wins, because we wind up with Gahan as the compromise, and you like compromise, don't you? Why can't we all just get along?
Analyzing why Benedetti would throw away her incumbency by becoming a disciple of the Wizard of Westendia would take too long. Let's just assume she has thrown it away and start planning for 2011.
Oh yeah. John Gonder. Let no one forget that Gonder, too, cast his vote for Gahan. I have my thoughts on that one, too. But since it's raining so hard, I think I'll keep my powder dry for the time being and let John explain his vote in his own good time. Tick, tock.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
The First Monday
Traditionally, the first Monday and the third Thursday are the designated days for the Common Council for the second class City of New Albany to meet. You should mark those days on your calendar. From time to time, usually around the holidays, those dates shift, but you owe it yourself and your children and your children's children to attend at least some of those gatherings.
Next Monday, January 7, will be the first meeting of a newly elected council. How this council (8 Democrats and 1 Republican) will align, remains to be seen. What we can be sure of is that three impediments to progress have left the council. Will the three who replaced them be more progressive? Will that translate into legislation and oversight that moves us forward?
This first meeting is usually pro forma, with a concentration on organizational matters. The council will elect a president (and a vice president to preside in the absence of the former) and begin to establish its standing committees.
But this incoming council has been far from passive. Its secret meetings and other informal discussions promise a dynamic agenda from the opening tip-off. Oddsmakers say that second-term at-large council member Jack Messer will give up his flagship role as the leader of a progressive movement to assume the chair. The headcounts say he has the votes to take the gavel from the barely lamented Larry Kochert. Kochert, by the way, is already lobbying for a lucrative sinecure on the city's municipal utility board. While we don't begrudge "King Larry" a paycheck, we sincerely doubt that he will behave himself in keeping with the traditions of democracy and open government. Why should he start now?
The Messer ascendancy seems assured. Once again, though, incoming council members will be tempted by "Councilman Cappucino's" fall charm offensive to give the District 1 rep the booby prize and award him with the vice presidency. I urge the majority who elects Messer to enforce its will by electing either of Messrs. Gahan, Gonder, or Caesar to fill the seat in the president's absence.
On a related note, uncertain intelligence reports that more than $8,000 has already been raised for Candidate X to use in the 2011 race for the District 1 seat. Considering we're less than two hours into Mr. Coffey's third term, that's pretty impressive. That sum equals every dollar invested in the nine races contested last November. Someone is pretty serious about removing DJC from his representative role.
The incoming council will be handed at least one serious decision to address. In the fading moments of the last council's tenure, a motion was successfully tendered to solicit applicants for the role of counsel to the city council. Incumbent Jerry Ulrich has served as an able parliamentarian to the chair and as a perfectly adequate advocate for litigatory causes championed by a council majority. Perhaps that allegiance to the former majority is what has prompted this vote of "less than confidence." I've maintained that Mr. Ulrich has represented his communal client (the majority) in his advocacy and in his public pronouncements. That's something for this new council to consider as they review the applicants. Do they want an attorney who tries to make policy, or an attorney who will vigorously defend and prosecute their will?
If the new council is concerned that Mr. Ulrich "skewed" to the majority too often in the past, and perhaps to the detriment of the city and the council, perhaps they should interview him to determine the causes. For example, in the late council's indefensible refusal to draw lawful legislative districts, Mr. Ulrich merely claimed to be willing and able to present a defense. Given that a clear majority of the late council demanded that even its patently unlawful redistricting ordinance be presented to the Federal District Court with a straight face, wasn't Mr. Ulrich doing everything within the bounds of his charge?
Some have suggested to this observer that Mr. Ulrich did not serve his clients well. I've suggested that he may, in fact, have been representing "their" views with as much vigor as a sentient being can do without drawing obvious horse laughs. Whether in its lawsuit against the city-owned utility, against the tyro stormwater board, or against the clear reading of the U.S. and Indiana constitutions and statutes regarding equal representation, Ulrich propounded positions demanded by his clients (the council majority). Is that a reason to replace him? Maybe so, maybe not.
On the intriguing subject of the citizen lawsuit to enforce the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, it should be noted that only three of the remaining council members voted to resist the arguments of legal history: Messrs. Coffey (D1), Price (D3), and Gahan (D6). The extant ordinance, certain to be rebuffed and declared void sometime in February, should be repealed by the incoming council. And it should be repealed on Jan. 7. Every member knows, or should know, that the Federal court has signaled that this ordinance will be met with extreme displeasure, that its variance from equality exceeds the permissible.
We look forward to an immediate vote by this council to agree to a consent decree whereby the council will undertake to complete an aggressively public redrawing of districts before the end of 2008. Such a vote would avert a costly and losing legal battle next month. Some member should propose it for the agenda by Thursday afternoon. And if no one does, it should be presented in executive session following the public meeting as new and emergency business. By Monday, the city will be within less than 30 days from a reckoning that could present the city with needless expense and great humiliation if it tries to defend the indefensible.
How about you, Mrs. Benedetti? You could make a great statement for democratic values by proposing that as your first measure as the representative for District 5.
For new readers: The City Council meets on the third floor of the City-County building. You can't miss the assembly room as it is directly opposite the elevators. For the past four years, it has been the best entertainment (if you could keep your lunch down or your eyes from popping out of your heads) in town. One hopes the next four years will see a more sober and rational series of meetings.
Next Monday, January 7, will be the first meeting of a newly elected council. How this council (8 Democrats and 1 Republican) will align, remains to be seen. What we can be sure of is that three impediments to progress have left the council. Will the three who replaced them be more progressive? Will that translate into legislation and oversight that moves us forward?
This first meeting is usually pro forma, with a concentration on organizational matters. The council will elect a president (and a vice president to preside in the absence of the former) and begin to establish its standing committees.
But this incoming council has been far from passive. Its secret meetings and other informal discussions promise a dynamic agenda from the opening tip-off. Oddsmakers say that second-term at-large council member Jack Messer will give up his flagship role as the leader of a progressive movement to assume the chair. The headcounts say he has the votes to take the gavel from the barely lamented Larry Kochert. Kochert, by the way, is already lobbying for a lucrative sinecure on the city's municipal utility board. While we don't begrudge "King Larry" a paycheck, we sincerely doubt that he will behave himself in keeping with the traditions of democracy and open government. Why should he start now?
The Messer ascendancy seems assured. Once again, though, incoming council members will be tempted by "Councilman Cappucino's" fall charm offensive to give the District 1 rep the booby prize and award him with the vice presidency. I urge the majority who elects Messer to enforce its will by electing either of Messrs. Gahan, Gonder, or Caesar to fill the seat in the president's absence.
On a related note, uncertain intelligence reports that more than $8,000 has already been raised for Candidate X to use in the 2011 race for the District 1 seat. Considering we're less than two hours into Mr. Coffey's third term, that's pretty impressive. That sum equals every dollar invested in the nine races contested last November. Someone is pretty serious about removing DJC from his representative role.
The incoming council will be handed at least one serious decision to address. In the fading moments of the last council's tenure, a motion was successfully tendered to solicit applicants for the role of counsel to the city council. Incumbent Jerry Ulrich has served as an able parliamentarian to the chair and as a perfectly adequate advocate for litigatory causes championed by a council majority. Perhaps that allegiance to the former majority is what has prompted this vote of "less than confidence." I've maintained that Mr. Ulrich has represented his communal client (the majority) in his advocacy and in his public pronouncements. That's something for this new council to consider as they review the applicants. Do they want an attorney who tries to make policy, or an attorney who will vigorously defend and prosecute their will?
If the new council is concerned that Mr. Ulrich "skewed" to the majority too often in the past, and perhaps to the detriment of the city and the council, perhaps they should interview him to determine the causes. For example, in the late council's indefensible refusal to draw lawful legislative districts, Mr. Ulrich merely claimed to be willing and able to present a defense. Given that a clear majority of the late council demanded that even its patently unlawful redistricting ordinance be presented to the Federal District Court with a straight face, wasn't Mr. Ulrich doing everything within the bounds of his charge?
Some have suggested to this observer that Mr. Ulrich did not serve his clients well. I've suggested that he may, in fact, have been representing "their" views with as much vigor as a sentient being can do without drawing obvious horse laughs. Whether in its lawsuit against the city-owned utility, against the tyro stormwater board, or against the clear reading of the U.S. and Indiana constitutions and statutes regarding equal representation, Ulrich propounded positions demanded by his clients (the council majority). Is that a reason to replace him? Maybe so, maybe not.
On the intriguing subject of the citizen lawsuit to enforce the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, it should be noted that only three of the remaining council members voted to resist the arguments of legal history: Messrs. Coffey (D1), Price (D3), and Gahan (D6). The extant ordinance, certain to be rebuffed and declared void sometime in February, should be repealed by the incoming council. And it should be repealed on Jan. 7. Every member knows, or should know, that the Federal court has signaled that this ordinance will be met with extreme displeasure, that its variance from equality exceeds the permissible.
We look forward to an immediate vote by this council to agree to a consent decree whereby the council will undertake to complete an aggressively public redrawing of districts before the end of 2008. Such a vote would avert a costly and losing legal battle next month. Some member should propose it for the agenda by Thursday afternoon. And if no one does, it should be presented in executive session following the public meeting as new and emergency business. By Monday, the city will be within less than 30 days from a reckoning that could present the city with needless expense and great humiliation if it tries to defend the indefensible.
How about you, Mrs. Benedetti? You could make a great statement for democratic values by proposing that as your first measure as the representative for District 5.
For new readers: The City Council meets on the third floor of the City-County building. You can't miss the assembly room as it is directly opposite the elevators. For the past four years, it has been the best entertainment (if you could keep your lunch down or your eyes from popping out of your heads) in town. One hopes the next four years will see a more sober and rational series of meetings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)