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.
Showing posts with label pat mclaughlin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pat mclaughlin. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
A Mac Attack
The excuse first offered by D5 Diane McCartin-Benedetti of "I was confused" may well be growing epidemic.
D4 Pat McLaughlin tabled or deferred consideration Monday night on a tax abatement measure intended to give incentives to L&D Mail Masters for investment in a new property.
Deputy Mayor Carl Malysz, clearly in favor of the incentive, but not situated to insist on its consideration, offered to "school" Mr. McLaughlin (and other council members) on the broad outlines of the tax abatement process, its purposes, and its intended benefits. Realizing that the council had no intention of taking up the matter, he politely offered to meet with Mr. McLaughlin to answer any of his questions. President Gahan expanded that offer in later discussion by proposing a full-council work session on the subject.
My own concerns are two.
One: Isn't it a little late in the game to be "educating" yourself on the broad subject of tax abatements? Wouldn't a reasonable person have obtained that knowledge beforehand. As we understood it, Mr. Mac's confusion was unrelated to the specific request. It seemed clear that Mr. McLaughlin was coming to the whole concept of tax abatements as a new subject.
Two: We made the inference (wrongly, it turns out) that Mr. Malysz was offering a backroom skull session for one or more council members outside the view of the public. Yet, it is an important point to raise. Who says that a wide-ranging discussion of tax abatements should take place somewhere other than a public meeting? Why shouldn't the council as a whole debate and discuss the philosophical and practical underpinnings of tax abatements to aid in recruitment of new investment?
The council had previously determined that it would, as a rule, grant no more ten-year abatements - only five-year grants. This "decision" took place completely outside of public view. We're not saying any sunshine laws were broken. But such an important "decision" shouldn't be made in private, should it?
Mr. Malysz and the England administration should think carefully about what types of communications they make to (and with) council outside of the official council schedule. And council members shouldn't be permitted to plead "confusion" when a matter comes up before the council in public meetings. Hash it out. Ask your questions in public and get your answers in public.
With 8 Democrats seated, there sure seem to be some troubling anti-democratic tendencies.
D4 Pat McLaughlin tabled or deferred consideration Monday night on a tax abatement measure intended to give incentives to L&D Mail Masters for investment in a new property.
Deputy Mayor Carl Malysz, clearly in favor of the incentive, but not situated to insist on its consideration, offered to "school" Mr. McLaughlin (and other council members) on the broad outlines of the tax abatement process, its purposes, and its intended benefits. Realizing that the council had no intention of taking up the matter, he politely offered to meet with Mr. McLaughlin to answer any of his questions. President Gahan expanded that offer in later discussion by proposing a full-council work session on the subject.
My own concerns are two.
One: Isn't it a little late in the game to be "educating" yourself on the broad subject of tax abatements? Wouldn't a reasonable person have obtained that knowledge beforehand. As we understood it, Mr. Mac's confusion was unrelated to the specific request. It seemed clear that Mr. McLaughlin was coming to the whole concept of tax abatements as a new subject.
Two: We made the inference (wrongly, it turns out) that Mr. Malysz was offering a backroom skull session for one or more council members outside the view of the public. Yet, it is an important point to raise. Who says that a wide-ranging discussion of tax abatements should take place somewhere other than a public meeting? Why shouldn't the council as a whole debate and discuss the philosophical and practical underpinnings of tax abatements to aid in recruitment of new investment?
The council had previously determined that it would, as a rule, grant no more ten-year abatements - only five-year grants. This "decision" took place completely outside of public view. We're not saying any sunshine laws were broken. But such an important "decision" shouldn't be made in private, should it?
Mr. Malysz and the England administration should think carefully about what types of communications they make to (and with) council outside of the official council schedule. And council members shouldn't be permitted to plead "confusion" when a matter comes up before the council in public meetings. Hash it out. Ask your questions in public and get your answers in public.
With 8 Democrats seated, there sure seem to be some troubling anti-democratic tendencies.
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 8, 2008
Wouldn't It Have Been Cool If...
...Pat McLaughlin and Diane Benedetti had attended a few council meetings over the past two years? Think they might have reconsidered giving their vote to Dan Coffey?
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.
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.
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)