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 steve price. Show all posts
Showing posts with label steve price. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
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!
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!
Sunday, January 20, 2008
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.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Shallower and Shallower
District 3 council member Steve Price, beginning his second term as the Democratic representative of the most diverse district in the city, is the antithesis of "depth."
We note NA Confidential's dialogue regarding Mr. Price's comments in The Tribune, wherein he referred to the council as "they."
Our "Price-less Moment" for the January 7 meeting came when Mr. Price took the stage to declare his undying support for whatever is the opposite of progress.
He stated (and I'll paraphrase) that his default position on all zoning and planning matters destined to come before the council would be to oppose any plan that draws opposition from the closest neighbors. One assumes that includes futile stances that will subject the city to great expense when the council rebuffs strictly legal proposals.
One observer noted that Mr. Price was a bold defender of the status quo for Monday night's Sixth District NIMBYs, and wondered why he wasn't equally bold in defending his own district against decay and infestation by a slumlord/crackhouse mentality.
We note NA Confidential's dialogue regarding Mr. Price's comments in The Tribune, wherein he referred to the council as "they."
Our "Price-less Moment" for the January 7 meeting came when Mr. Price took the stage to declare his undying support for whatever is the opposite of progress.
He stated (and I'll paraphrase) that his default position on all zoning and planning matters destined to come before the council would be to oppose any plan that draws opposition from the closest neighbors. One assumes that includes futile stances that will subject the city to great expense when the council rebuffs strictly legal proposals.
One observer noted that Mr. Price was a bold defender of the status quo for Monday night's Sixth District NIMBYs, and wondered why he wasn't equally bold in defending his own district against decay and infestation by a slumlord/crackhouse mentality.
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.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Tribune Twists the Knife?
Eric Scott Campbell, the intrepid reporter for The Tribune, couldn't resist twisting the knife in today's news report on city business. And he wasn't the first to make a comment to me about the remarkable coincidence of Wednesday evening's schedule of events.
It seems that the city council discovered that tonight was the only night they could possibly hold their rescheduled meeting. Is it just a coincidence that the mayoral forum being hosted by Develop New Albany will be taking place just across the street at the same time? Could council president Larry Kochert have taken into consideration that most of the same people who attend and monitor council meetings would be interested, if not obligated, to attend the candidates forum?
But that's not the only news impacting local government this a.m. Gov. Mitch Daniels revealed his master plan for "property tax 'relief'" on Tuesday, and it's a doozy.
Now, I'm usually pretty perceptive. With a little study, I usually "get" it. So the Daniels plan seems to be an overreaction of the greatest magnitude.
There is so much to say. While it is a statewide issue, it will have tremendous ramifications for local government and the provision of services. But what's the truth underlying this move?
As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), local government revenues cannot rise more than 4% per year - check that - property tax revenues (general fund) cannot rise more than 4.4% per year. Yet, The Tribune wrote today that the average property tax bill rose by 24% this year, attributing that number to the Associated Press.
NOTE TO TRIBUNE EDITORS: Are you sure you didn't get that number from an anti-tax advocacy group that is making New Albany its Southern Indiana home? Isn't 24% a cooked-up number? How is it possible for the average property tax bill to go up by that much while total revenues are under a Proposition 13-like cap? I've tried to do the math. Theoretically, if 50% of the people saw their tax bills rise 100%, while the remaining populace saw their taxes go up zero percent, you could get that "average." But tax collections (local government revenues) would then have to rise by 24%. So which is it? Did taxes go up 24% or 4.4%? I think I know the answer, but I'd love to hear The Tribune's answer.
So here's Mitch's plan.
Cap owner-occupied residential property taxes at 1% of value (no exemptions? no credits?). Residential properties not occupied by the owner would have a tax cap of 2% of value. Business and commercial properties' taxes would be capped at 3%.
As a matter of basic equity, I'm down with the idea of a 1% cap on property taxes for homes where the owners live. I'd actually be OK with a cap of 2%, provided that a commensurate level of service were provided, but a constitutional amendment would prevent any local government from using property taxes to create a superior city or county.
For the next two categories, I'm attracted to the idea of treating rental properties as the businesses they are. We have no public interest in promoting or subsidizing investment in rental properties over job-creating businesses. We certainly don't have that interest in New Albany. Why would rental properties be subsidized? What greater value do such businesses bring to a community that justifies giving them a tax abatement? Is the fact that Daniels' political supporters are more likely to OWN rental properties a factor in the governor's proposal?
But that's not the end of the Daniels plan. By 2009, he proposes to raise the already regressive sales tax by another penny on the dollar, to 7%. I'm not inalterably opposed to tax increases, but the idea of imposing them on sales is, in the final analysis, a way to take a larger share of tax revenues from those least able to pay them.
In the interests of protecting the assets of those who have accumulated wealth, the governor proposes to increase taxes on the poor. For that reason alone I oppose his plan.
Now, I understand that the consumer who elects to spend her money on a flat-panel HDTV will be paying 7% sales tax. But so will the single mom buying milk to feed her children. And the "benefits" are far outweighed by the costs. We shouldn't be imposing the costs on those least able to pay, and the Daniels plan does that, all in the name of a false emergency.
Now that wealth-holders are seeing their wealth accurately taxed, they are marshaling their political forces to panic officeholders into passing emergency measures. In reality, property taxes can't have risen. There is literally no place for those revenues to go.
Indiana is a state with many borders. Here in Southern Indiana, consumers have a ready alternative to paying 7% sales tax - shop in Kentucky. I guess it would only be fair, since we are milking the Bluegrass state's gambling dollars with our casinos, but if ever there was a measure designed to drive retailers out of the state, especially merchants on the border of Kentucky, this is it.
One would expect Sipes, Stemler, Cochran, et al, to be leading the charge against this ill-conceived plan. Yet, to read the literature put out by Sipes and Cochran, they are being stampeded into the "property tax relief" herd. Joining with the city's own Steve Price and mayoral candidate Doug England, our representatives are panicking, pandering, or punishing the poor. And trying to drive business away.
And that's the view of Shadow5.
P.S. Didn't the legislature just give local governments the "freedom" to impose local sales taxes or local income taxes to make up for declining revenues? Doesn't this new "relief" effectively cripple the cities and counties who might have considered a local option sales tax?
It seems that the city council discovered that tonight was the only night they could possibly hold their rescheduled meeting. Is it just a coincidence that the mayoral forum being hosted by Develop New Albany will be taking place just across the street at the same time? Could council president Larry Kochert have taken into consideration that most of the same people who attend and monitor council meetings would be interested, if not obligated, to attend the candidates forum?
But that's not the only news impacting local government this a.m. Gov. Mitch Daniels revealed his master plan for "property tax 'relief'" on Tuesday, and it's a doozy.
Now, I'm usually pretty perceptive. With a little study, I usually "get" it. So the Daniels plan seems to be an overreaction of the greatest magnitude.
There is so much to say. While it is a statewide issue, it will have tremendous ramifications for local government and the provision of services. But what's the truth underlying this move?
As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), local government revenues cannot rise more than 4% per year - check that - property tax revenues (general fund) cannot rise more than 4.4% per year. Yet, The Tribune wrote today that the average property tax bill rose by 24% this year, attributing that number to the Associated Press.
NOTE TO TRIBUNE EDITORS: Are you sure you didn't get that number from an anti-tax advocacy group that is making New Albany its Southern Indiana home? Isn't 24% a cooked-up number? How is it possible for the average property tax bill to go up by that much while total revenues are under a Proposition 13-like cap? I've tried to do the math. Theoretically, if 50% of the people saw their tax bills rise 100%, while the remaining populace saw their taxes go up zero percent, you could get that "average." But tax collections (local government revenues) would then have to rise by 24%. So which is it? Did taxes go up 24% or 4.4%? I think I know the answer, but I'd love to hear The Tribune's answer.
So here's Mitch's plan.
Cap owner-occupied residential property taxes at 1% of value (no exemptions? no credits?). Residential properties not occupied by the owner would have a tax cap of 2% of value. Business and commercial properties' taxes would be capped at 3%.
As a matter of basic equity, I'm down with the idea of a 1% cap on property taxes for homes where the owners live. I'd actually be OK with a cap of 2%, provided that a commensurate level of service were provided, but a constitutional amendment would prevent any local government from using property taxes to create a superior city or county.
For the next two categories, I'm attracted to the idea of treating rental properties as the businesses they are. We have no public interest in promoting or subsidizing investment in rental properties over job-creating businesses. We certainly don't have that interest in New Albany. Why would rental properties be subsidized? What greater value do such businesses bring to a community that justifies giving them a tax abatement? Is the fact that Daniels' political supporters are more likely to OWN rental properties a factor in the governor's proposal?
But that's not the end of the Daniels plan. By 2009, he proposes to raise the already regressive sales tax by another penny on the dollar, to 7%. I'm not inalterably opposed to tax increases, but the idea of imposing them on sales is, in the final analysis, a way to take a larger share of tax revenues from those least able to pay them.
In the interests of protecting the assets of those who have accumulated wealth, the governor proposes to increase taxes on the poor. For that reason alone I oppose his plan.
Now, I understand that the consumer who elects to spend her money on a flat-panel HDTV will be paying 7% sales tax. But so will the single mom buying milk to feed her children. And the "benefits" are far outweighed by the costs. We shouldn't be imposing the costs on those least able to pay, and the Daniels plan does that, all in the name of a false emergency.
Now that wealth-holders are seeing their wealth accurately taxed, they are marshaling their political forces to panic officeholders into passing emergency measures. In reality, property taxes can't have risen. There is literally no place for those revenues to go.
Indiana is a state with many borders. Here in Southern Indiana, consumers have a ready alternative to paying 7% sales tax - shop in Kentucky. I guess it would only be fair, since we are milking the Bluegrass state's gambling dollars with our casinos, but if ever there was a measure designed to drive retailers out of the state, especially merchants on the border of Kentucky, this is it.
One would expect Sipes, Stemler, Cochran, et al, to be leading the charge against this ill-conceived plan. Yet, to read the literature put out by Sipes and Cochran, they are being stampeded into the "property tax relief" herd. Joining with the city's own Steve Price and mayoral candidate Doug England, our representatives are panicking, pandering, or punishing the poor. And trying to drive business away.
And that's the view of Shadow5.
P.S. Didn't the legislature just give local governments the "freedom" to impose local sales taxes or local income taxes to make up for declining revenues? Doesn't this new "relief" effectively cripple the cities and counties who might have considered a local option sales tax?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Five takes a look at Three
It's not my job to "shadow" events in District 3, but I can't quite resist commenting on what I've heard coming out of the "major" party campaigns going on over there.
Though I couldn't make it, friends reported some of the comments made by the candidates at the Muir Manor candidate's forum, moderated by Greg Phipps. From what I am told, all but a handful of the attendees were members of the East Spring Street Neighborhood Association. (what's going on with their acronym, ESNA? Doesn't the name dictate 2 esses?)
Mr. Price showed something by just appearing. The Spring Streeters are almost uniformly fed up with Steve Price. It would be hard to characterize that group as either Democrat or Republican, but for the most part they are progressive in the best sense. They believe in a government that is responsive to its constituents, and they believe that government SHOULD be a vehicle for accomplishing community-shared objectives.
Mr. Price seems to believe that the "opinions," however uninformed, of his friends should have more weight than the informed, well-researched, and strongly expressed opinions of voters who aren't his friends. I know, from their ill-researched and knee-jerk, reactionary opinions as expressed in public, that Price's friends have no allegiance to facts. During the forum (which turned into a debate between the SS folk and the sitting council member) it was again brought up that Price doesn't worry about facts. It seems that he mistrusts facts and according to the newspaper of record's reporting, let's "rumor" control his voting behavior.
One person who was there told me that Price expressed that he was for the "common man." I may be taking a wild guess here, but I think that the third district's representative thinks that anyone who uses big words is trying to fool him. One audience member implored Price to consider that considering the advice, if not the wishes, of people who think beyond one level (and use big words like "accountability") might make him a better councilman.
Another correspondent said that Steve Price convinced her to vote for Scharlow with his repeated emphasis that we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of the past. Like recruiting Your Community Bank and its other tenants by building a municipal parking garage. Like making a leveraged public investment to bring about a YMCA/Aquatic Center in downtown ($130,000 in payments each year for 17 years=$1.91 million in exchange for a $20 million+ facility, albeit one that will not directly generate taxes). Mistake, according to this woman? Electing Price again.
Republican opponent Brenda Scharlow wasn't perfect. In many ways, according to observers, her solutions were as simplistic as Price's. Yet, Price has proved to be unwilling to learn. Maybe Scharlow will be more willing to listen. Experience as a cheerleader is hardly a plus, but in the context of the forum, and as a distinct counterpoint to Mr. Price's ongoing campaign to vilify and slander the city itself, her promise to lead cheers for New Albany might be worth a vote.
Scharlow, in a folksy way that exceeded the typical Price aphorisms, compared her solution as a mother of seemingly dozens to the Price Theorem: The lady said that when faced with a tight budget, she chose to expand the revenue side of the equation. Price would cut the expenditures. The same people, aided by new investment, could eat healthy salads under Scharlow's professed plan. The same people, adopting a bunker mentality, untrusting of new ideas, would, under the Price Theorem, settle for macaroni and cheese, and be destined for cheeseless macaroni in a few years, then sawdust-enhanced macaroni, then...day-old bread?
Let me be clear. Based on his performance, Steve Price should not be returned to office. But he is, as his supporters insist, not a bad guy. It is (remotely) possible that he could someday serve his city. But first, he needs to understand that doing the job of a councilman is not supposed to be easy. There will be ideas that are hard. George Bush complained that his job was hard, but all he did was complain. Price's default reaction is to distrust and vote against any idea he doesn't understand.
It may not be a compliment, but I think Steve Price is smarter than George Bush. His instincts are more compassionate, certainly. His concern for the welfare of his constituents is exceedingly higher than the son of the man "born on third base, thinking he had hit a triple" (Thank you, Molly).
But performance counts, too. Price has failed to perform. He has failed to grow. Rather than assert himself, he has relied on bad advisors (the Schmidts, Dan Coffey, and a few non-public personalities who also deny the facts).
Here's something telling. One phone caller told me that Steve Price said something like "I'm not Dan (Coffey's) drinkin' buddy!" I don't even know if Price "drinks." But Roger Baylor pointed out that Price voted exactly the same way as Coffey on more than 98% of council votes.
Helen Spudich is quoted in the paper to the effect that Price won't listen to the EssEssers. She's right. Perhaps he could have been an effective representative for the growth of this city. But he chose the wrong advisors.
In all fairness, Price presented himself early as someone who could not be talked to. He reacted negatively to ideas he couldn't understand. More critically, he didn't try to understand those ideas. The willingness to take a phone call isn't enough. As Charlie Harshfield is reported to have said, "you didn't hear a word I said." And it is reported that Price replied, "That's a fair statement."
You get no credit for taking calls if your mind is already made up and you can't or won't listen to a constituent.
Scharlow may have flaws, as do all of us. But Price needs to sit out the next four years. If he can understand that MOST people have little interest in hurting the city and that ALL input is valuable, then maybe in 8 or 12 years he can present himself again as a candidate.
It would be dismissive to "endorse" Scharlow's candidacy without advancing some of her campaign planks. And it would be equally unfair to ignore the flaws in her platform.
Shadowna5 leans left, frankly far left, compared to the average New Albanian (not Roger Baylor, but the 38,000 or so others who claim or decline the appelation). "Endorsing" a Republican takes consideration. But Scharlow has demonstrated a clear understanding of the importance of strengthening our city's core. She and her family have invested their fortunes there over the years and continue to do so. It remains to be seen if she is any more capable of understanding nuance than Price. It remains to be seen if she is any more capable of resisting the importations of her party's "Old Guard."
BUT...
Expanding the pie is the only way out of our 30-year slide. And Brenda Scharlow clearly understands that. She can be relied on to seek out the community's benefit over her own. She will not shrink from debate (I know that from personal experience). From the vantage point of Shadowna5, she is not perfect. But she is an improvement.
At Wednesday's forum, according to one reporter, Scharlow boasted that she is impatient. She reportedly said that she was aware of, and dissatisfied with, the fact that things move exceedingly slowly. When asked if that was acceptable, she declaimed that she was not one to remain passive at the prospect of inertia.
From the vantage point of District 5 (as it is currently organized), that's enough to earn an endorsement. We in D5 (or 5D, as "councilman3d" Maury Goldberg would put it), that's enough to gain our endorsement.
Mr. Bliss (R-Approachable) and Mrs. McCartin-Benedetti (D-Unknown) would be well-advised to address that quite-important quality in a candidate.
NEXT UP: D1, the easiest endorsement ever.
Though I couldn't make it, friends reported some of the comments made by the candidates at the Muir Manor candidate's forum, moderated by Greg Phipps. From what I am told, all but a handful of the attendees were members of the East Spring Street Neighborhood Association. (what's going on with their acronym, ESNA? Doesn't the name dictate 2 esses?)
Mr. Price showed something by just appearing. The Spring Streeters are almost uniformly fed up with Steve Price. It would be hard to characterize that group as either Democrat or Republican, but for the most part they are progressive in the best sense. They believe in a government that is responsive to its constituents, and they believe that government SHOULD be a vehicle for accomplishing community-shared objectives.
Mr. Price seems to believe that the "opinions," however uninformed, of his friends should have more weight than the informed, well-researched, and strongly expressed opinions of voters who aren't his friends. I know, from their ill-researched and knee-jerk, reactionary opinions as expressed in public, that Price's friends have no allegiance to facts. During the forum (which turned into a debate between the SS folk and the sitting council member) it was again brought up that Price doesn't worry about facts. It seems that he mistrusts facts and according to the newspaper of record's reporting, let's "rumor" control his voting behavior.
One person who was there told me that Price expressed that he was for the "common man." I may be taking a wild guess here, but I think that the third district's representative thinks that anyone who uses big words is trying to fool him. One audience member implored Price to consider that considering the advice, if not the wishes, of people who think beyond one level (and use big words like "accountability") might make him a better councilman.
Another correspondent said that Steve Price convinced her to vote for Scharlow with his repeated emphasis that we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of the past. Like recruiting Your Community Bank and its other tenants by building a municipal parking garage. Like making a leveraged public investment to bring about a YMCA/Aquatic Center in downtown ($130,000 in payments each year for 17 years=$1.91 million in exchange for a $20 million+ facility, albeit one that will not directly generate taxes). Mistake, according to this woman? Electing Price again.
Republican opponent Brenda Scharlow wasn't perfect. In many ways, according to observers, her solutions were as simplistic as Price's. Yet, Price has proved to be unwilling to learn. Maybe Scharlow will be more willing to listen. Experience as a cheerleader is hardly a plus, but in the context of the forum, and as a distinct counterpoint to Mr. Price's ongoing campaign to vilify and slander the city itself, her promise to lead cheers for New Albany might be worth a vote.
Scharlow, in a folksy way that exceeded the typical Price aphorisms, compared her solution as a mother of seemingly dozens to the Price Theorem: The lady said that when faced with a tight budget, she chose to expand the revenue side of the equation. Price would cut the expenditures. The same people, aided by new investment, could eat healthy salads under Scharlow's professed plan. The same people, adopting a bunker mentality, untrusting of new ideas, would, under the Price Theorem, settle for macaroni and cheese, and be destined for cheeseless macaroni in a few years, then sawdust-enhanced macaroni, then...day-old bread?
Let me be clear. Based on his performance, Steve Price should not be returned to office. But he is, as his supporters insist, not a bad guy. It is (remotely) possible that he could someday serve his city. But first, he needs to understand that doing the job of a councilman is not supposed to be easy. There will be ideas that are hard. George Bush complained that his job was hard, but all he did was complain. Price's default reaction is to distrust and vote against any idea he doesn't understand.
It may not be a compliment, but I think Steve Price is smarter than George Bush. His instincts are more compassionate, certainly. His concern for the welfare of his constituents is exceedingly higher than the son of the man "born on third base, thinking he had hit a triple" (Thank you, Molly).
But performance counts, too. Price has failed to perform. He has failed to grow. Rather than assert himself, he has relied on bad advisors (the Schmidts, Dan Coffey, and a few non-public personalities who also deny the facts).
Here's something telling. One phone caller told me that Steve Price said something like "I'm not Dan (Coffey's) drinkin' buddy!" I don't even know if Price "drinks." But Roger Baylor pointed out that Price voted exactly the same way as Coffey on more than 98% of council votes.
Helen Spudich is quoted in the paper to the effect that Price won't listen to the EssEssers. She's right. Perhaps he could have been an effective representative for the growth of this city. But he chose the wrong advisors.
In all fairness, Price presented himself early as someone who could not be talked to. He reacted negatively to ideas he couldn't understand. More critically, he didn't try to understand those ideas. The willingness to take a phone call isn't enough. As Charlie Harshfield is reported to have said, "you didn't hear a word I said." And it is reported that Price replied, "That's a fair statement."
You get no credit for taking calls if your mind is already made up and you can't or won't listen to a constituent.
Scharlow may have flaws, as do all of us. But Price needs to sit out the next four years. If he can understand that MOST people have little interest in hurting the city and that ALL input is valuable, then maybe in 8 or 12 years he can present himself again as a candidate.
It would be dismissive to "endorse" Scharlow's candidacy without advancing some of her campaign planks. And it would be equally unfair to ignore the flaws in her platform.
Shadowna5 leans left, frankly far left, compared to the average New Albanian (not Roger Baylor, but the 38,000 or so others who claim or decline the appelation). "Endorsing" a Republican takes consideration. But Scharlow has demonstrated a clear understanding of the importance of strengthening our city's core. She and her family have invested their fortunes there over the years and continue to do so. It remains to be seen if she is any more capable of understanding nuance than Price. It remains to be seen if she is any more capable of resisting the importations of her party's "Old Guard."
BUT...
Expanding the pie is the only way out of our 30-year slide. And Brenda Scharlow clearly understands that. She can be relied on to seek out the community's benefit over her own. She will not shrink from debate (I know that from personal experience). From the vantage point of Shadowna5, she is not perfect. But she is an improvement.
At Wednesday's forum, according to one reporter, Scharlow boasted that she is impatient. She reportedly said that she was aware of, and dissatisfied with, the fact that things move exceedingly slowly. When asked if that was acceptable, she declaimed that she was not one to remain passive at the prospect of inertia.
From the vantage point of District 5 (as it is currently organized), that's enough to earn an endorsement. We in D5 (or 5D, as "councilman3d" Maury Goldberg would put it), that's enough to gain our endorsement.
Mr. Bliss (R-Approachable) and Mrs. McCartin-Benedetti (D-Unknown) would be well-advised to address that quite-important quality in a candidate.
NEXT UP: D1, the easiest endorsement ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)