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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

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."

Apologies to The Bard (a guest column)

Doing a daily blog, or even a semi-regular posting, is not for everyone. But original thinking is inherent in most of us. This blog is pleased to present another view of the most recent city council meeting, offered this afternoon by netizen iamhoosier. Thanks, Mark.

Praise, burial, comedy, masquerading. All happened last night at the Common Council meeting.

First, there was a “comedy” as I read the agenda. An old cover letter was inadvertently used and was “signed” by Larry Kochert. The comedy, it turns out, foreshadowed a masquerade by Council President Gahan. Mr. Naville, attorney for the pawn shop, rose to speak during the Council’s discussion and question phase, after failing to be present at the earlier “agenda items” slot, for which he had signed up. It was suggested (I believe by Mr. Gahan) that Naville be allowed to speak. Mr. Bob Caesar (ain’t this great?) said, “If he speaks, they all speak.” Gahan froze for a moment and almost seemed ready to agree. Steve Price suggested that Mr. Naville could be questioned (which would be the proper way). Naville said that he was told at a previous meeting that it was better that he spoke when the ordinance came up (which, I do believe he was told). Gahan, again momentarily froze and then allowed the attorney to speak. And speak. And speak. Eerily reminiscent of some of the disorganized Council meetings under a past President.

I also come to praise Councilmember Steve Price. He made an excellent point about how “some” people seem to get approval (or not) with little justification. He said, “It sometimes make you wonder, just a little, if something “else” is going on”. I could not agree more. Of course, when it came time to vote, he voted to overrule the recommendation. (that was the burial)

Enough of the cuteness. The above is probably not near as “cute” as I thought when I wrote it.

Mr. Gahan is an intelligent man. I am willing to write off last night as a fluke or a just a plain mistake. I believe fairness dictates that anyone speaking for or against a proposal should be allowed to speak in the same portion of the meeting. The discussion period, before a vote, should only be for discussion among the Council and any questions they may have of the parties involved. Set it up correctly and it will help eliminate the errors of last night and make it more fair for everyone involved.

Mr. Price, just what “else” was going on with you? Really, I don’t think he is dishonest. He does seem like a nice guy but I am sure he doesn’t even see how ironic his statement and his vote is.

The pawn shop variance or rezoning (even debate about that last night) failed on a 5-3 vote. Messer, McLaughlin, and Price voting to allow the pawn shop. Mr. Naville may have lost it for the pawn shop. His final statement basically accused the Council of not doing their jobs and just being a “rubberstamp” if they didn’t vote in his client’s favor. He was very strong about it. In reality, I doubt that his ”accusation” lost it, anymore than my earlier statements against the variance won it. The votes did not change from the previous vote on this issue. Why in the world we would eliminate land from the industrial base just baffles me. I am just waiting for any of the 3 to mention the lack of industrial space in future meetings.

Mayor 54 Where Aaaaare You?

Our spouse contends it's inappropriate to call him "Mayor 54," especially when you have no idea what number he is (do you?), but then the boomer pop-cultural reference doesn't play as well when you title your blog post "Mayor 36 where are you?"

Regardless, the point is made. It is time for the Hon. Douglas B. England to shed his imperial mayoralty once and for all.

During his current term, England has been conspicuously absent from the meetings of New Albany's legislative body. In and of itself, that's not completely inappropriate. The mayor's job is unique. So is the council's. In ordinary circumstances, there's no particular reason for the mayor to intrude himself or his personality into the nine-member mix of council business.

But these are not ordinary circumstances.

One could make the case that shadow5 shouldn't even be making comments in the bloody aftermath of Thursday's city council meeting. After all, corporeal5, Diane McCartin Benedetti (memorably called Mrs. McCartin at last evening's convocation) was not in attendance. Her shadow, then, should just shut up, right?

Sorry, the shadow don't swing that way. We kept our traps shut after last week's signal meeting. We can't skip a whole month - not with all the drama afoot on the third floor.

So...tonight's dilemma is whether to report on what happened or to analyze what it means.

(30 minutes elapse)

Can't separate them. There's an inclination to say to our readers "Come to the meetings if you want to know what's going on," but we weren't raised that way. So, what the hey (an expression our friends used, and one our dear mother abhorred as "trashy).

At the end of May's first council meeting, we told one attendee that they had just sat through the most important meeting ever. It wasn't so much the actions of the council that Monday night, but the portents, the mood, and what could be inferred from it.

Last night's meeting proved, irrevocably, that the honeymoon is over. The always polite but ever passive aggressive Mr. Gahan presided over what could only be called an attempted coup, led, of course, by Sir Dan, but concurred in by all eight of the knights of the squared tables.

Those reading the tea leaves saw confirmation that the mayor-council honeymoon had ended when deputy mayor Carl Malysz was instructed to address any remarks to the council during the period designated as communication from city officials.

Heretofore, Mr. Malysz had been accorded last innings, during the period designated as communications from the mayor. Meticulously, Malysz always prefaced his remarks as being on behalf of the mayor, often including a diplomatic reason why the mayor could not be bothered to attend the meeting.

Assertiveness is often a trait to be praised, but when that assertiveness is so bare-faced, and yet put forward disingenuously and as if we were to believe it were organic, and not calculated, it can be judged as either ludicrous or nauseating. We chose chuckles and muted gasps. Others might reasonably have retched. Nonetheless, the entertainment is back at Hauss Square.

"Mayor 54" needs to know the jig is up. He can no longer send functionaries to do his bidding. He can no longer keep his lapels clean unless he's willing to see an independent council running amok. These few months of amity have come to an end and the illusion of a well-oiled (too well, for our tastes) machine has gone "poof."

Good for corporeal5. She picked a great night to absent herself. Not to paint the whole council with the same brush, but with what took place Thursday, it might be convenient for C5 to say "I wasn't there."

The admirable Mr. Caesar, representative of the old 2nd District, launched the first fireworks of the evening obliquely, making one of this week's notable events his cause celebre.

Observant readers of Tuesday's Tribune will have noted that New Albany's Board of Public Works and Safety experienced a change of rider in midrace. Deputy director of operations Matt Dennison was deposed as chairman of the board. In the two days following, speculation was rampant about the reasons. The deposed Dennison was not in attendance Thursday, but the council was in high dudgeon about his dismissal from the post.

Mr. Caesar praised Dennison for the way he had been conducting himself in the post and for his accessibility and helpfulness, and urged the council toward an informal resolution of commendation for young Matt. Other members concurred.

Who replaced Dennison? Why, Mr. Malysz, of course, the same Mr. Malysz who was next up in the line of speakers. Speaking, of course, on behalf of the mayor, but without his previously preferred place on the agenda, the deputy mayor acknowledged the sentiment of the council and promised to pass that on to His Honor. He assured the council that the change was perfectly innocuous, that the mayor had asked him to assume the responsibility, that he and Matt had discussed it, and that the changeover had been accomplished amicably. He told the assembly that it was in no way a "purge." To which the courtly Sir Dan replied, "We never said it was (a purge). Maybe it was in your mind, but we didn't say that."

Now, we know we are supposed to believe that Mr. Malysz took no offense. The man is nothing if not diplomatic, and his ability to press on in the face of insult and hostility is remarkable. Of course, we are also supposed to believe that Mr. Dennison's replacement was routine and without any hint of controversy. The hubbub around town over the last 48 hours was supposed to be ignored.

Mr. Malysz knew nothing (we are meant to believe) of what was coming next.

As the mayor was (again) absent, in the tradition of laissez faire, the next item on the agenda was the purely ministerial council function of confirming that New Albany desires to participate in the nation's revenue-sharing program known as CDBG, or CBGB, or whatever, whereby federal taxes are returned to cities for targeted improvements. This no-brainer resolution, which requires only the council's assent and confirmation that New Albany wants its piece of the pie, was tabled by Sir Dan.

(Note: Mr. Malysz's legend and reputation in Indiana is as the master of garnering grants and other federal monies.)

(Note 2: 3D Steve Price is the only council member on recent record as having voted "no" on accepting CDBG block grants for community development. After the most recent elections, Mr. Price is no longer the "Dopey" of the council's dwarfs, but he firmly held that title in his previous term.)

Mr. Coffey, who with corporeal5 serves on the Redevelopment Commission and is and was fully conversant with every particular of the participation letter and its accompanying wish list, decided that this would be the night he threw a wrench into the works.

After months of commission meetings and two public hearings, and after the council had a full weekend and four weekdays to review the wish list and participation letter, Coffey decided that May 15 would be the day he made his "stand" against the mayor, his deputy, and the administration. Not to mention "common sense."

Understand, please, that the "wish list" that accompanies the letter to federal officials contains no priorities and no commitments. If we were to go to the public hearing and advocate for, say, community gardens, that would go on the list of projects that might be funded by CDBG money. It's not particularly complicated. Actual expenditures are prospective. The RC must vote to expend the money. The letter (and council affirmation resolution) merely define the parameters of what the money might be spent on in the coming fiscal year 2009.

Sir Dan, the knight currently representing the old 1st District, decided this would be his "slapdown" moment, his moment to wield his sword in defense of...something.

By tabling the resolution (and be assured, Mr. Gahan made it clear he joined heartily in the slapdown, and be further assured that no other council member was motivated to exercise parliamentary prerogatives to move the measure), Mr. Coffey forces the administration to write a Friday letter explaining precisely why New Albany will not be complying with federal requirements to affirm its participation in the Community Development Block Grant Program.

Now, Malysz concedes that New Albany will not be given the death penalty for failing to meet the deadline (Friday, May 16) for submitting its "letter of intent." But who is to say, given the lamentable state of the U.S. dollar and the gargantuan budget deficit, that New Albany will now be last in line for disbursements. After all, all that was needed was a routine confession that New Albany, through its legislative body, wished to partake of the federal revenue sharing.

Why would Sir Dan do this? To make a point, to take a stand, to, in his own words, "draw the line." Hey, Dougie Boy, quit playing us for suckahs! We (and remember, this wasn't just Sir Dan, but the whole council being passive aggressive) won't stand for being presented with continuous "must-pass" legislation.

To be sure, this blogger has cogitated furiously over the remarkably rushed agenda of the 2008 council. 2008 has seen about a dozen furiously rushed votes that simply had to be passed in one meeting, with little discussion. The administration has discouraged deliberation and the council has been, for the most part, acquiescent in rushing forward legislation that the administration insisted must be passed "tonight."

(Note: Mr. Price's extortionate "giveback" fee for tax abatements was rushed through last night, without discussion, public notice, or any particulars [and illegally, in this observer's opinion], accompanied by Mr. Gahan's plaudits for the "quick" turnaround. Can anyone tell us what the giveback is? Not once in public has the council delineated what the fee might be.)

But last night's showdown was the worst possible occasion to assert the council's power. It was a frivolous gesture that may well be noted as this council's lowest moment. In a puerile attempt to embarrass Mr. Malysz, and by extension, Mr. England, Sir Dan may have forfeited hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal largesse.

Mr. Coffey, sensing an opportunity to grab the spotlight, purported to be solicitous of the council's prerogatives to deliberate over the multitude of possible projects that might be funded by CDBG money. In spite of the fact that the council had multitudinous opportunities to study and participate in this annual venture, in spite of the fact that this council had six days to review a long process and final document, Coffey successfully squelched approval. In fact, the requested formal assent to the letter had zero substantive effect on which projects might be funded with this federal money. Coffey decided that May 15 was the appropriate time to punch Doug England in the snout. Mr. Mayor: Lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas!

Mr. Mayor: If you wish to accomplish your stated goals and if you are sincere, you must abandon your imperial mayoralty. You need to break a sweat, attend the council meetings, and advocate personally for your initiatives. As a respected, but unelected functionary, Mr. Malysz can no longer wield your scepter. The council has spoken, as they are entitled to. Whether their actions are wise or frivolous, your disconnection from council cannot continue if you hope to be an effective mayor.

Shadow5 has little idea what personal and private advocacy you are engaged in. But in the sunshine of public meetings, your strategy has run its course. This council, for better or worse, has cast down the gauntlet and is calling you out. The England administration can no longer treat the council as a rubber stamp. The honeymoon is over. Weeks before we predicted it, Sir Dan has reverted to demagogic form, and King Jeffrey is backing his play.

Oh. And the Mount Tabor Road pawnshop rezoning was rejected. Next!

Through a Glass Darkly (Updated)

We're willing to be proved wrong, honestly. But as these things go, shadow5 tends to be pretty well clued in. So please, council, tell me I'm wrong. Via the City Clerk, Marcey Wisman, they did.

I learned this past week that the New Albany City Council held a full, formal educational meeting, purportedly of all nine members, without ever posting a public notice. Ms. Wisman has provided us with a copy of the notice, which she says was issued 7 days prior to a Feb. 20 meeting.

Here are the particulars. The council met as a body with Police Chief Greg Crabtree to discuss the police department's (and the administration's, we presume) needs and wants during this term. Although the meeting notice (which I still hadn't seen until Feb. 26) claimed the purpose of meeting to discuss "confidential" drug task force issues, I am informed that it was not limited to those subjects.

Said meeting was held without the public in attendance. No public notice was given. Purportedly, President Gahan designated the meeting as an "executive" session, one which the public would not have been allowed to observe in any event. But that does not relieve the council from posting and issuing public notice of the meeting, a fact that the City Clerk could have easily advised them of.

And if proper notice was given and merely missed by ALL local residents and media, the meeting would not have qualified as one where the public can be excluded.

Here is how the governing statute rules:

The council is subject to the Indiana Open Door Law (IC -14-1.5). No one will dispute that.

A meeting (of the council) is a gathering of a majority of the members...for the purpose of taking official action upon public business...with few exceptions, all meetings...are open to the public and may be observed and recorded...Many officials fail to understand the breadth of activities that constitute official action. "Official action" means to: 1. receive information 2. deliberate 3. make recommendations 4. establish policy 5. make decisions, or 6. take final action.

The mere act of receiving information is sufficient, when a majority of the members of the governing body is present, to require compliance with the Open Door Law.

Public notice must be given for all meetings, including executive sessions, at least 48 hours before the meeting.

We call on President Gahan to publicly apologize for this violation of the Open Door Law and to institute procedures to ensure that this council will not disrespect its constituents by future violations. Absent that, it's hard to see how lawsuit to obtain a declaratory judgment declaring the violation and enjoining the council from future violations can be avoided.

Ironically, this blog has called for just such a meeting to take place. We do not object to the council receiving information from the police department.

But to blithely convene such a meeting without public notice, or to hold such a meeting on proper notice but to misuse the "executive session" exceptions to the Open Door Law, is highly objectionable and cannot be countenanced.

We ask, as an aside, where the local media were on this?

And if we are wrong, if in fact a public notice was given, we apologize. Nonetheless, the issue is well worth raising. And if notice was given, it is still disturbing that the public was prevented from attending by the use of the pretense of the council meeting in "executive" session.

This meeting was clearly not eligible for the exemptions under the law. And it creates yet another cloud of suspicion over the openness of our city goverment. All who participated should issue public apologies immediately and pledge that no such violations will occur in the future.

The council must guard against holding private meetings under pretexts. Supposedly, at least some portion of the meeting included discussion of specific projects under investigation by the police. I seriously doubt that a discussion of such things in a public meeting would have compromised any investigation. And if seriously confidential investigative matters were discussed with the council, who has confidence that every single member of the council would be capable of keeping those confidences?

We have council members extremely closely tied to prime suspects under active investigation. How are some of these council members considered to have the judgment to keep confidential matters secret?

This briefing was, in all likelihood, general in scope and more of a P.R. session than anything. If so, it does not fall outside the Open Door Law, even if it was held in the offices of the city council counsel. And if it did qualify to be a closed meeting, should city council members be made privy to confidential investigative matters? Can they be trusted to keep those confidences 100 percent, to not use that information as political capital or as favors to friends?

We were apparently wrong about the improper notice, although I did not read of the meeting in any local media. We thank Ms. Wisman for responding to our inquiries and will point out that she, as city clerk, was not in attendance. She has assured us that a memorandum of the meeting will be prepared and made available to the public.

Gettin' Down in the Muck

Yes, New Albanians, the city council is once again obsessed with excrement.

Less than a month after the council showed wisdom in bringing to an end two pieces of litigation it was sure to lose, it officially reversed itself on one of them and thumbed its nose to the court and the opposing parties on the other.

The official reversal was the most serious of the Feb. 4 actions/inactions.

I've consulted with experts and attorneys about this litigation and not one seems to believe the council has a leg to stand on in this suit. Of course, this council has its own omniscient expert and an attorney willing to carry out his will, so Judge Cody will, despite clear signals to the council, be asked to consider the case of The Common Council for the City of New Albany vs. The Sewer Board of the City of New Albany AND The Common Council for the City of New Albany vs. The Stormwater Board of the City of New Albany.

Let's recap and then analyze this misbegotten "case."

Council members Gahan and Coffey, who've grown increasingly obsessed with the opportunity to pander politically on the manufactured issue of the "accountability" of the sewer and stormwater boards, and probably for other disparate reasons, motivated the previous council to file suit.

The excuse for spanking these boards was the granting of management contracts to EMC, the private contractor who managed sewer operations for the past five years. The relatively new stormwater board elected to execute a much smaller, but similar contract for operations management with EMC.

The sewer board contract with EMC contemplated an automatic renewal, at a higher price, provided that both parties agreed. This is important. There was no new contract under consideration, merely a continuation of the existing contract. The sewer board, due in no small part to the efforts of Kevin Zurschmiede, determined to renegotiate the contract and avoid the automatic renewal. The renegotiation resulted in a net savings to the sewer board and its ratepayers for the next five years.

The contract with EMC has been described legally as a "professional services contract." As such, it is not subject to the same procedures as contracts for goods and other services. If it is, and we believe it is, a professional services contract, there is little reason to challenge it and even less reason to believe that the city council can win in this litigation.

Imagine for a moment an indisputable professional services contract. Let's say, Jerry Ulrich's contract as the city council attorney. The council is surely entitled to make a subjective judgment that Ulrich has or has not done a good job in the past. They are surely entitled to determine whether his demeanor and attitude are convivial to their proceedings. Ulrich may or may not be the best lawyer for the job. He may or may not be the cheapest (or most expensive) lawyer available and willing to do the job. But no one (yet) has challenged the council's retention of Ulrich.

We'll concede that the EMC contract is of greater scale than the retention of a part-time council attorney. But engineering services and personnel management services are equally "professional" and have long been considered to be so important to the faithful execution of fiduciary duties that subjective evaluation trumps the "low-bidder" imperative the council seems to desire.

Does the council even have standing to have its suit go forward? Under current law and under current city ordinances, the sewer board is not beholden to the council. Although a majority of its membership is subject to appointment approval by the council, once appointed they are designed to be and obligated to be independent of the political whims of the council. Council has a narrowly defined role in sewer matters. Once the council has chosen to make its "enterprise" an independent utility, it should not and may not interfere in its operations. Yes, the council must approve most rate increases, but they are not entitled to micromanage the sewer board, whose members operate a utility that was always intended to pay for itself and to occasionally produce returns to the city's general fund.

The mere fact that Mr. Gahan became insulted by the previous board, the mere fact that Mr. Coffey deems himself an expert in myriad matters, does not justify tampering with this independence.

One cannot but speculate as to what favors and other compensations the council members may be seeking in trying to overturn what appears to be a favorable, and independently derived contract.

Is the council likely to prevail? No. The first question that will arise is whether the council has the right to sue the independent sewer board. Do they have standing, as the council, to challenge the actions of this independent board. We predict that Judge Cody will say no.

But then, suppose he grants them standing to challenge. Is the expense to the city, and the expense to the sewer utility's ratepayers, justifiable?

Most courts reject the concept of providing advisory opinions. Courts take on legitimate controversies and take them on only when they are "ripe." That the EMC contracts are professional services contracts is undisputed. The council seems to believe that the mere scale (in dollars) of the contracts make them somehow "special" and thus subject to challenge.

Finally, let's assume that Judge Cody grants the council standing to sue and that he declares the EMC contracts to not be "professional" services contracts exempt from the requirement to solicit bids and proposals and that the renegotiation of an existing contract triggers a requirement to expend $60,000 (according to Zurschmiede) to go through a bidding process.

Is it worth $30,000 to overturn a "good" contract? How about $60,000?

Why should Dan Coffey's private agenda cost this city tens of thousands of dollars? Why should New Albany residents and New Albany Sewer Board ratepayers shoulder the cost of this ego-driven conflict? To be a "test" case for the novel theory that independent utilities can and should be made dependent to their authorizing entities? To "test" the accepted law on what constitutes a professional services contract?

Mr. Caesar, Mr. Price, Mr. McLaughlin, Mrs. Benedetti, and Mr. Gonder need to shed the influence of the Coffey/Gahan axis. They need to consider whether their own curiosity ought to be satisfied at such great expense.

This was NOT done because counsel told them they had a good case. It WAS done because Mr. Coffey and Mr. Gahan successfully framed the question in such a way as to manipulate their colleagues into asking the wrong question. Mr. Ulrich is the council's hired gun and if they tell him to file suit, he will. When the question is put to a lawyer as "can you present a case," the answer will be "yes." When the question is put to a lawyer as "can you win a case," the answer may well be different.

But if you are willing to pay any price to have your case presented, don't expect your hired gun to say "no."

Sincerely, we invite your comments. The council is alleging that the sewer board executed an illegal contract. That's dubious. The motives are transparent. The ease with which the council executed an about-turn from its wise decision to drop the lawsuit casts doubt on their collective judgment.

And as for that other litigation they elected to put to an end, it should be noted that the council did not meet the court-ordered deadline for submitting a response to Judge Tinder's demand for a proper redistricting ordinance. No consent decree has been presented to the plaintiffs in that action, who now have 14 days to seek a default judgment against the city and the council.

Once In a Blue Moon?

Kudos to Jeff Gahan and Steve Price for your perspicacity on Sunday evening. We will not question your sincerity, and applaud the symbolism of your gesture.

Hot Bites!

Tiny nuggets of observation from Thursday's New Albany City Council meeting.

ITEM: Mayor Doug England seems determined to establish a clear delineation between the executive and legislative branches of government. Pleading more important obligations, His Honor sent his professional staff to the meeting, but promised to again visit with the council on Feb. 20 to deliver his State of the City address.

ITEM: England was rebuffed in his request to have a sewer board constituted immediately. It is clear that a 3-member board will be created, a motion to suspend the rules and pass a new organizational structure for the utility failed for lack of a second. Sewer business is thus suspended for as many as four more weeks, much to the chagrin of the administration and "new" sewer board attorney Lee Buchanan. The council didn't buy the argument that having no sewer board for the first six weeks of the year is such a critical impediment that it couldn't wait.

ITEM: The previous council had asserted itself with regard to sewer board contracting processes, going so far as to file a lawsuit against the board (Does New Albany v. New Albany qualify as an intra-squad competition?). Thursday night the council instructed its counsel, Jerry Ulrich, to withdraw its suit. It's hard to fault any of the council votes on this one. While we consider the suit to have been ill-advised and marred by rather successful demagoguery, there is some appeal to seeing the court rule on the key question, namely, does a contract to manage operations fall into the category of "professional services," and thus exempt from requirements for competitive bids, or can those professional services be treated as "public works," and thus subject to rigorous (cumbersome?) requirements most often related to time and materials projects. Shadow5 believes the sewer board acted properly, but can't find fault with those who would like a legal ruling. Since you can't just call up Judge Cody and ask him what he thinks, pursuing the lawsuit could be justified.

At-large council member Kevin Zurschmiede made a convincing case in defense of his previous service on the board, but even he claimed to welcome a judicial resolution.

In any case, the suit is dropped. And in several weeks, a sewer board can be so informed.

ITEM: England's tenure is sure to be more productive after council gave final approval to a reorganization of "third floor" functions. The team is now in place and as a local entrepreneur said today, there had better be a quick improvement in performance. A short-lived effort to sever the new code inspector position from the executive reorganization was quashed. An impassioned letter drafted and presented by citizen Jeff Gillenwater on behalf of numerous neighborhood associations made it clear that this enhanced enforcement position was an expected part of the mayor's campaign commitment to further a key progressive aim.

ITEM: We've always maintained that we'll respect disagreement that has a rational basis. Mrs. Benedetti (D5) is prone to using council meetings themselves as the time to educate herself, but showed strong indications that her votes will be based on rationality. As much as we'd like to think that she could be an ally to a progressive vision... (and let's face it, "we" decide what qualifies as progressive, but we do need a label. It can't just be a political party or a geographic zone or a personality. Although "Baylorite" has a nice ring.) ...we'd settle for obvious and apparent cogitation over each recorded vote. On balance, Thursday night was an improvement.

ITEM: Signals. That's the word we were searching for in response to criticisms of this blog from "Ruthanne" last week. Like barometric pressure changes that signal incoming weather, a city council meeting is filled with signals. Ruthanne believed that the only fair report was "not enough data." We saw enough to forecast stormy seas. The predominant mode of civility and reasoned discourse, with predictable lapses from the Wizard of Westendia, signaled good weather ahead. If the climate holds, there is a downside - council meetings will be far less entertaining. The greatest show in town may have moved over to Larry McAllister's County Council. The circus may have changed nights! Now, if McAllister can just declare which party he belongs to...

ITEM: Council demonstrated a measure of parity with the mayor's office this time around. You may recall that the reorganization of the executive offices went unchallenged, even unquestioned in January's first meeting. Without rancor, but with some steel, Mrs. Benedetti demanded at least a cursory explanation from the deputy mayor. And she made it clear that when she requests information that does not issue on a timely basis, she intends to condition her votes accordingly.

ITEM: A truly interesting (and hungry) crowd descended on one downtown nightspot (not Hugh E. Bir's) following the evening's festivities. Civility, if not bonhomie, characterized the night, with Gahang members cohabiting the space with Baylorites and aficionados of the Restoration. Much discussion revolved around the fact that the 2011 1st District campaign fund had ballooned beyond the $9,000 mark. Realtors report a swelling of interest by residents seeking to relocate to the West End sometime in the next two years. Overheard in reference to a certain council member: "Send him back to Birdseye!"

ITEM: Congratulations are in order to Bob Caesar, Pat McLaughlin, Diane Benedetti, John Gonder, Jack Messer, and Kevin Zurschmiede. Those worthies repealed the 2007 ordinance setting district boundaries, the ordinance that Judge Tinder warned would meet with disfavor if returned to his court. Ironically, that restores the horrendously inequitable districts that maintained after the 2000 census. But fear not. Concurrently, the council voted to establish a committee of three disinterested and impartial (at-large) members who will join with three people designated by the plaintiffs in Vogt v. City of New Albany, the redistricting lawsuit, to design a lawful ordinance that presents equal districts based on the only legally relevant census numbers. Yes, sanity has prevailed (well, 66.67% sanity).

One can expect that we'll read a news brief in the local papers soon announcing that a consent decree has been entered that terminates the existing lawsuit in exchange for a binding commitment from the city to abide by the Constitution and its equal protection requirements.

What a long, strange trip. Even in defeat, council member Dan Coffey could not resist restating his slanders of the plaintiffs and his grossly inaccurate history of the case. Perhaps the most repellent piece of his recital was the claim that a unanimous council responded with alacrity to the lawsuit (or, as he put it, "once we were made aware of it"), agreeing that it needed to be fixed. If that were true, wouldn't it have been nice if Mr. Coffey and his recalcitrant colleagues had issued a press release or a legal response acknowledging that. The fact that no such statement ever issued is proof of the lie.

We'll grant that Mr. Coffey may have been so willing to listen to the deposed Karry Ling that he was snookered by the erstwhile D4 council member. But we doubt it.

For the record, Messrs. Gahan, Coffey, and Price rejected the consent decree, preferring to risk the clearly signaled ire of a federal district court judge. How they will defend that position is the first campaign issue for 2011.

ITEM: Some discreet digging revealed that the plaintiffs intend to conduct an exhaustive search for qualified residents willing to serve on the newly authorized committee. Although the right to designate lies with the plaintiffs, the actual appointment will be made by council President Jeff Gahan. Interested applicants should send their submissions to the plaintiffs by e-mail to hlwimp@insightbb.com or to the council president, by e-mail to gahan@insightbb.com or by mail to The Hon. Jeff Gahan, 1122 Eastridge Dr., New Albany, IN 47150. We trust that Mr. Gahan will forward those for approval by the plaintiffs.

A Caffeynated Four Years?

I'd guess more like four months, but that's more than enough to do immeasurable damage.

Dan Coffey, who continues to set records for least electoral support among winning candidates, also continues to misrepresent the interests of the people of the First District. But his ability to work his will was on full display Monday night.

Coffey outworked and outmaneuvered his opponents on the council and now we all get to live with the consequences.

Jack Messer (At Large), a reliable advocate for sound, responsive, accountable, and reasonable legislation, had presumably gained the confidence of enough of his colleagues to take the gavel at Monday's organizational meeting of the council. Jeff Gahan (D-6) had presumably decided a year ago that he could serve better as an active participant in debate. Messer had decided he could serve better by bringing discipline to the conduct of council.

Gahan's support proved to be critical to Messer's ambitions and it simply wasn't there. We'll never know why Gahan decided to again seek the presidency, but we have lots of guesses.

It was a given that council members Coffey and Price would never support Jack Messer. Yet, direct opposition as candidates would have been folly. Accordingly, the enfeebled Gang of Two (let's face it, Dan) began to court Gahan as their stalking horse. We can easily imagine the bonhomie and flattery (Save us, Obi-Wan Kenobe) that persuaded Gahan to join the "Stop Messer" movement.

Coffey, who comes from the "whispering campaign" wing of the Democratic Party - that's the one that withers and dies in the light of the sun - still needed more votes. What a Godsend, then, was the election of Coffey confidant Gary McCartin's sister in District Five.

Who then among the remaining new council members would be easiest to persuade? Not Bob Caesar. Not John Gonder.

How about Pat McLaughlin, the candidate who twice endeavored and once succeeded in driving Larry Kochert from public office. But how could anyone imagine that someone who presented himself as the anti-Kochert might give his vote to continue a Kochertian tradition?

Dan Coffey could imagine it. And it makes him not only kingmaker, but the temporary power behind the throne. A soft, yet powerful appointment for the spent Coffey ally Bill Schmidt was just the first of the perks dispensed by the new President. We hope that someone will compile a list of Monday night's council appointments. An educated reading of those lists will reinforce our conclusion that 2008 is the Year of Coffey.

Based on the way McLaughlin (D-4) campaigned, we shouldn't have been surprised. He, along with Benedetti, have clearly deposited their futures (and their constituents') in the First Bank of Coffey. The interest may be lean, but those "bank" fees are going to eat you up.

He Earned It, But How, Precisely?

Shadow5 admits to great disappointment at the return of Jeff Gahan as President of the 2008 City Council. After two years wielding the gavel, Gahan took a year off from presiding over the council's deliberations. We inferred that as he had grown into the job during his first term he had grown increasingly frustrated at being a mediator instead of an active participant in debate.

Despite fits and stumbles as the presiding officer, and a penchant for being unable to hide his anger, Gahan was demonstrably more capable in the chair than his unlamented successor.

We have too much respect for Mr. Gahan to believe he is a fool. Yet, he has for months begun to align himself with the bitter ignorance caucus on the council, previously known as the Gang of Four. By his stated expressions, it was clear that he felt that he was being disrespected by the administration, that he was being played. His reaction to same was to become mercurial and often unreasonable.

Gahan's most glaring deficiency was his blind resistance to addressing the Constitutional inequities of the city's legislative districts. Gahan, more than any single council member, has resisted all efforts to avoid costly litigation. Gahan, as a potential "peacemaker," first chose to dig in his and the council's heels and pretend there was no problem. Later, as a "mere" council member, Gahan, in our estimation, sold out in exchange for...

A mess of porridge is our guess.

The payback? Another year in the center chair.

Shadow5 has a rule when it comes to politicians. I don't have to like you, I don't have to agree with you. But don't lie to me. Don't "play" me. Jeff Gahan ought to know how that feels. A lot of people say Gahan is a "nice" guy, a "smart" guy, an "reasonable" guy.

I no longer trust him as a man of his word, and that's lamentable. The temptation to psychoanalyze the man is high, but it's not necessary. On objective evidence, he's sold out and begun a dangerous slide to the dark side.

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.