Almost no one will take notice of it, but the June and July convocations (canonical prayer and religious pledge included) of the Common Council for the City of New Albany are destined to be determinative ones.
Tomorrow, we hope to bring you our very best arguments for a progressive future (and one that seems doomed, based on today's report by Daniel Suddeath in The Tribune).
But today, we want to merely set the stage.
Stealing from a book promotion, we found this snippet:
Global warming.
50 million Americans uninsured.
Massive budget deficits.
Failing public schools.
A tarnished national image.
These are not policy failures.
Actually, these crises are the inevitable result of the policies we've chosen. Today's policies were designed to treat our dependence on oil as a given, our basic health as a luxury, an inadequate education as a privilege, and our children's wealth as our own.
A "donut" economy with regard to downtown commerce.
Streets that exact an enormous financial toll on New Albany drivers.
A confusing array of nonsensical traffic patterns that encourage speedway behavior and that discourage commercial traffic.
A diminishing commitment to community and, in particular, community schools.
A dependent and debilitated sewer utility inadequate to meet the community's needs and unable to support itself from its own revenues.
Policies that encourage criminal enterprises to migrate into New Albany.
Policies that discourage home ownership and allow irresponsible absentee house owners to prosper.
A defensive, insular, survival response on the part of residents whereby they "hunker down" and try to survive all of the above.
We know it's a revolutionary proposition, but we would propose that ALL of the above abominable results are the inevitable result of the policies we've chosen.
This IS the challenge we face. This IS our defining moment.
When 2011 rolls around, we must be ready to replace those who endorse the policies that are designed to destroy our common weal. When 2011 rolls around, we must have rallied a majority who reject both the policies and the inevitable results those policies have created.
One thing we do know. D5 is not part of the solution.
Check back tomorrow.
Our illustrious Sewer Board, purportedly not under the direction of our current chief executive, is prepared to continue a policy designed to further degrade New Albany, and by extension, the prosperity of all New Albanians. Quelle horror!
Showing posts with label sewer board. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sewer board. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Habits of Thought are Death to Truth
The ideological struggle for the future of New Albany continues unabated. On one side are advocates for a better New Albany who believe change is in order. On the other side are people who believe everything is just fine the way it is and who fear change.
Change can be a good thing. When change involves risk, a certain level of concern is justified. But when failing to change is dead-certain to bring fearful consequences, it makes no sense to hunker down and try to wait out the apocalypse.
One might forgive members of the general public for cowering fearfully in the dark. But the same response from elected officials is unacceptable, if only because they control the light switch while we pay the electric bill.
Our goal here is to push back the darkness. This week, the darkness is tax subsidies for sewers. Next week it will be something else.
Although we can't verify that it is original (and we doubt it is), we were struck by the words Rivka Galchen put into a character's head in his recent novel, Atmospheric Disturbances.
Change can be a good thing. When change involves risk, a certain level of concern is justified. But when failing to change is dead-certain to bring fearful consequences, it makes no sense to hunker down and try to wait out the apocalypse.
One might forgive members of the general public for cowering fearfully in the dark. But the same response from elected officials is unacceptable, if only because they control the light switch while we pay the electric bill.
Our goal here is to push back the darkness. This week, the darkness is tax subsidies for sewers. Next week it will be something else.
Although we can't verify that it is original (and we doubt it is), we were struck by the words Rivka Galchen put into a character's head in his recent novel, Atmospheric Disturbances.
- "His response was neither random nor spontaneous; it was predetermined by his previous ideas about me; habits of thought are death to truth; I was outside of my habits; and he - he was wrong."
New Albany is being endangered. Not by "novelty lighters," as a recent council ordinance averred, but by habits of thought.
One of those habits of thought that should be recognizable is a belief by an influential faction on the city council that is so self-centric as to be bathetic. It involves the projection of one's own motives onto another. If a decision-maker looks at each choice as an opportunity for self-enrichment, then that decision-maker presumes that all others are making choices based on the same motives and motivations. That's very Darwinian, but hardly admirable.
A second habit of thought is that any proposal that is difficult to understand must have been created that way in order to confuse and thus exploit. Thus, when a decision-maker is presented with that difficult to understand idea, she becomes suspicious that she is being fooled. The habit of thought becomes a habit of action - that action being to say "no." It is foolish to think that "no" is always the safe choice, but we have a city council that certainly leans that way.
It's hard to credit the fact that a majority of this council, the second council in a row in which the voters essentially cleaned house and turned out half the members, could be steered by such habits of thought. But it is so.
Based on my reading of the tea leaves, this council is leaning toward a foolish plan to use tax dollars to subsidize sewer rates. If that is, in fact, the plan, I offer a serious alternative that ought to pass with just as little reference to the consensus view of reality.
On a council that pays regular homage to a "fixed magical belief" that they have special insights into public finance, this proposal ought to fly through three readings.
Instead of diverting $875,000 in EDIT funds to subsidize sewers (and sewer rates are based on water usage), let's divert it to pay for gasoline. Granted, many of the people who buy gas in New Albany don't pay EDIT taxes. But then many of the people who use sewers/water in New Albany don't pay EDIT taxes here. Gas prices are climbing rapidly and, let's face it, people are hurting. Under the Steve Price Plan, that's reason enough to spend tax dollars on it.
The proposal from Mr. Coffey that sewer rates be subsidized is a clear statement from him that he does not believe the sewer utility should be run like a business that supports itself. We have a number of industrial and commercial users of water that, as entities, pay no EDIT taxes, but use enormous amounts of water. The Coffey/Price plan would have you, the taxpayer, subsidizing their rates, too, but in the name of "the people."
From this vantage point, the only thing being done to the people by these two is to keep 'em in the dark.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
I Dream of Effluent With the Light Brown...
We can dream, can't we?
The work sessions of the New Albany City Council are predictably scripted affairs, and although the public is grudgingly allowed to attend, this council has no interest in the participation of the public, despite the fact that at any given time, more members of the audience are up to speed on the issue at hand than are sitting among the knights of the squared tables. Want to advance this city? Get elected. Otherwise, sit down and shut up.
We're often baffled at how this council majority can delude itself into the belief that being elected, often without opposition and by a phenomenally small majority of its constituents, imbues them with a divine right and supreme judgment on all matters governmental.
But, they did manage to get on the public payroll in the accepted manner, and whether they earn their keep or not, they do get to make the final decisions.
But that doesn't mean we have to shut up.
If Monday's 6 p.m. work session presentation is to be believed, the England administration, the Sewer Board, and their financial advisers, Crowe Chizek and Company, LLC, have the golden ticket on a silver plate.
Perhaps for the first time in living memory, New Albany has an opportunity to make its sanitary sewer utility a self-sustaining entity. All municipal enterprises (and "enterprise" is, in this instance, a term of art) are intended to be self-sufficient. That is, they are required to support themselves from their own revenues and, from time to time, return surpluses to their owners, the cities who authorized, founded, and funded them.
New Albany's wise men seem to have skipped class during the semester they offered Public Finance and Fund Accounting 101. But maybe the dark ages of deteriorating sewers is coming to an end.
If the presentation is to be believed, a five-year program of physical plant improvements (none are optional and most are mandated by court order) can be funded by a manageable bond issue combined with a modest increase in rates. The rate increase is what you'll be hearing the most about, even though New Albany's rates will be, by far, the lowest for comparable cities in this region, even after an adjustment.
The most promising aspect of the plan is that a previously committed $875,000 of EDIT (economic development income tax) funds will be returned for more appropriate use by the city. Within five years, we are promised, the city will have a functioning sewage system and the financial stability to not only support itself, but to finance ongoing capital projects without any additional borrowing.
The minimum ratepayer, the proverbial granny on a fixed income (we have one in our family, too) would be looking at a bill increase of $2.20 per month ($26.40/year) on sewer charges. The average user would be facing a bill increase of $7.70 per month ($92.40/year). Compared to a gas fuel charge increase of $60 a month, that's not bad, especially when you recall that in New Albany we would still be paying at rates well below market price.
Yes, the administration could be lying. Crowe Chizek could be lying. But the risk seems nominal, particularly if we never again have to dwell on excreta and its treatment as the primary focus of our government.
We are hopeful that bluegill will again demonstrate why EDIT taxes are a pandering fool's method for pretending to serve the people.
By the way...heard any complaints about garbage service lately?
The work sessions of the New Albany City Council are predictably scripted affairs, and although the public is grudgingly allowed to attend, this council has no interest in the participation of the public, despite the fact that at any given time, more members of the audience are up to speed on the issue at hand than are sitting among the knights of the squared tables. Want to advance this city? Get elected. Otherwise, sit down and shut up.
We're often baffled at how this council majority can delude itself into the belief that being elected, often without opposition and by a phenomenally small majority of its constituents, imbues them with a divine right and supreme judgment on all matters governmental.
But, they did manage to get on the public payroll in the accepted manner, and whether they earn their keep or not, they do get to make the final decisions.
But that doesn't mean we have to shut up.
If Monday's 6 p.m. work session presentation is to be believed, the England administration, the Sewer Board, and their financial advisers, Crowe Chizek and Company, LLC, have the golden ticket on a silver plate.
Perhaps for the first time in living memory, New Albany has an opportunity to make its sanitary sewer utility a self-sustaining entity. All municipal enterprises (and "enterprise" is, in this instance, a term of art) are intended to be self-sufficient. That is, they are required to support themselves from their own revenues and, from time to time, return surpluses to their owners, the cities who authorized, founded, and funded them.
New Albany's wise men seem to have skipped class during the semester they offered Public Finance and Fund Accounting 101. But maybe the dark ages of deteriorating sewers is coming to an end.
If the presentation is to be believed, a five-year program of physical plant improvements (none are optional and most are mandated by court order) can be funded by a manageable bond issue combined with a modest increase in rates. The rate increase is what you'll be hearing the most about, even though New Albany's rates will be, by far, the lowest for comparable cities in this region, even after an adjustment.
The most promising aspect of the plan is that a previously committed $875,000 of EDIT (economic development income tax) funds will be returned for more appropriate use by the city. Within five years, we are promised, the city will have a functioning sewage system and the financial stability to not only support itself, but to finance ongoing capital projects without any additional borrowing.
The minimum ratepayer, the proverbial granny on a fixed income (we have one in our family, too) would be looking at a bill increase of $2.20 per month ($26.40/year) on sewer charges. The average user would be facing a bill increase of $7.70 per month ($92.40/year). Compared to a gas fuel charge increase of $60 a month, that's not bad, especially when you recall that in New Albany we would still be paying at rates well below market price.
Yes, the administration could be lying. Crowe Chizek could be lying. But the risk seems nominal, particularly if we never again have to dwell on excreta and its treatment as the primary focus of our government.
We are hopeful that bluegill will again demonstrate why EDIT taxes are a pandering fool's method for pretending to serve the people.
By the way...heard any complaints about garbage service lately?
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)