Why Councillor Robinson Voted Against the Tax Increase

There were some riveting moments during the 3 or so hours of last night's hearing on the IFD and IMPD budgets.

One of the most stunning was when Councillor LeRoy Robinson made a statement about why he voted against the increase in the public safety income tax.

"What we need is a permanent change in our priorities.  We tend to pay for what we want and tax the people for what we need."

"A whopping 286 Million dollars is going to development, entertainment, and parking garages."

"That's the real conversation."

Well said, sir.  Well said.

Below is the clip of his statement and IMPD Chief Rick Hite's response. 

I have to say, I found Hite's mention of IMPD being a paramilitary organization something of a non sequitur and somewhat disturbing - especially since I did not hear the phrase "community policing" all night long.  I have included his entire response, as he does bring up good points regarding how the police numbers fell off.

However, he never addresses the spending priorities for the tax hike that appeared to be coming from, or at least endorsed by, both the Department of Public Safety and himself.  Those priorities include spending only $4 M of the tax hike on hiring new officers in 2015.  The tax hike is expected to generate $29 M; $16 M of which is earmarked for IMPD. 

Can We Just Stop With The Lying?

So the income taxes are going up.

Front and center in the IndyStar review of last night's vote of the Council, is this quote from Councillor Aaron Freeman:

"We have fewer officers than we should because we have been taking in less property taxes in this bad economy the last several years."

He makes it sound like the Council and the Mayor have had less money to work with and that is why they didn't support funding recruit classes for IMPD these past few years, as the Council Democrats had continued to try to do.

Freeman either knows he is lying to the public, or he is just passing along the meme offered by Ryan Vaughn.

Yes the City-County takes in less property tax revenues than they did before the tax caps came into effect.  They also have fewer bills to pay.  This actually left the City-County with about $50 Million MORE to spend than they had before the tax caps.  Add to that the increased revenue from Peterson's Public Safety Tax, and well - they had plenty of money to do any hiring they wanted.

But, they did not.

Even without the tax increase, the 2015 budget does fund a recruit class of 50.  With the tax increase, they are looking at 40 additional.

So, its not true that "we have fewer officers than we should because we have been taking in less property taxes in this bad economy the last several years".  We've had the money, just not the interest.

Suppose for a second that Freeman's statement were true - why would we need to raise income taxes when both property tax revenues and income tax revenues are climbing now that the economy has improved?

And if the Ballard Administration truly sees a need to increase the number of officers, why is Jason Dudich saying that only $4 M will go to IMPD's budget in 2015?  The tax increase is expected to bring in $29 M.  $2 M goes to the excluded cities and towns, by State mandated division of Public Safety Tax revenue.  Likewise, $10 M will go to County functions - but no discussion as to how that money will be spent has been done in public.  That leaves $13 M that Dudich wants to put into IMPD fund balance.  This would be overruled in a heartbeat if Vaughn wanted the money to be spent by IMPD.

That's right folks - you get to pay more in taxes so that the biggest chunk can fatten the year end balance.  And a whopping fourteen cents of every additional dollar will go to hiring more police officers.  Fourteen cents.

One cannot ignore the fact that this tax hike comes just before the proposed Criminal Justice Center gets crammed through.  Could be a coincidence.

So, we'll see if this Administration actually moves toward keeping interested in hiring more officers as the years go by, or if they'd rather spend this new money on something else.

Meanwhile, can we just stop all the lying?

IMPD Budget Recap - It's Probably Not What You Expected

Last night's budget hearing for IMPD was quite well attended.  For those who missed it, let me recap.

Public Safety Director Troy Riggs, Police Chief Richard Hite, and Public Safety Deputy Director Valerie Washington present limited IMPD budget numbers; noting only that the money flowing to IMPD from one fund (the IMPD General Fund) would remain the same, at $187m.  

In 2014, the want to hire 35 civilians to take over duties now conducted by sworn Officers, allowing those Officers to return to patrol duties.  They also want to set up a recruit class of 50 new hires.  That, combined with 10 civilian hires this year, make the 90 new sworn Officers that is being bandied about in the media today.

But, in order to accomplish all of this, they need to have their budget cut by $5.65 m.

Now, I know you want to go back and re-read that last sentence.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.

Yes the IMPD budget is being reduced by $5.65 million.  This includes a $7.09 million decrease in salaries from the current year budget.  No wonder they glossed over all the numbers except that one fund's expenditure total.

So you say, but Pat, what about the $1.4 million in fees to be charged the Officers for use of their take-home cars?  Well, I assume that's in the budget somewhere, but there is  no line that says 'fuel surcharge fee' in the numbers available to the public.  And, all I can say is, what one hand giveth, the other taketh away.

And you say, but Pat, what about the two tax hikes the Council gave the CIB - the increased ticket tax and car rental taxes?  Wasn't the first year's $6m supposed to go to IMPD and IFD?  And, after that isn't 25% of those increases to continue to flow to IMPD and IFD?  Why, yes, that's true.  But the year began on March 1, so the is only two months of 100% CIB 'public safety' revenue in 2014 and the rest is at 25% - so maybe $1m to IMPD. 

But, Pat, you say, what about the proposed increase in the old IPD Tax District?  Isn't that assumed in the 2014 that is on the table?  Why, yes - yes it is.  I know they say it will net about $3 million in additional funds, but the additional revenue IMPD collects is only $1.6 m.  And it actually should show up as a decrease in the property tax circuit breaker.  But that number is just about the same as it was for the 2013 budget.  So, you got me.  I'm sure its in there.  Yet again, what one hand giveth, the other taketh away.

What about the $9 million that is supposed to come from elimination of the Local Homestead Credit?  Surely that's in the IMPD budget.  Ryan Vaughn and Troy Riggs are all over the media saying that if that credit isn't eliminated then the IMPD budget will lose $9 million and there could be no new hires next year if that happens.  Well, this one gets a 'not really'.  Should the Local Homestead Credit be eliminated, the IMPD budget would actually go down about $300,000.  IMPD is better off if its not eliminated.  The elimination frees up County Option Income Tax revenue, but IMPD doesn't see a penny of that money.

Lets add up all the new money that the Mayor Ballard, Vaughn and Riggs imply is in the IMPD budget, shall we?  $1.4 million in fuel surcharge fee, $1 million from the CIB, $1.6 million or $3 million from expanding the old IPD Taxing District, and the $9 million from eliminating the Local Homestead Credit - sounds like $13 million to $14.4 million more money to IMPD, doesn't it?

But - nope.  No $14 million more for IMPD.  The 2014 budget really is $5.65 million less than 2013.

Its all a game to use public safety to secure public support for this round of tax changes. 

Thank Goodness Jon Murray Is Back

Jon Murray, City Hall beat reporter for the Indy Star, is back from vacation.  And, its about time, I tell you.  Now we can get some real information about what's going on behind the scenes with the budget.

I've not been able to post about the last couple of night's meetings, and will catch up with that after I tell you what Murray is reporting about tonight's important CIB budget meeting.

The Democrats haven't collapsed after all - as seemed at last night's Public Safety committee meeting.  They are still eyeballing the CIB for payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT), and in addition, are lusting after some of the $80 million Rebuild Indy stabilization fund.

Murray reports:

Already, moves by the council — including a successful bid by a committee Tuesday, with help from Republicans, to save a property tax credit targeted for elimination — have rattled the Ballard administration.

Thursday, another committee could vote to extract a $10 million to $15 million payment from the city’s sports and convention board.

Council Democrats’ aim: to sock away money to help pay for recruit classes of 50 police officers and 30 firefighters next year as the city contends with declining ranks.

The latest estimates pin the cost at $4.2 million for the police officers and $500,000 for the firefighters. (The Indianapolis Fire Department is seeking a federal grant to cover most of its cost.)
....
Council President Maggie Lewis said that besides the CIB payment, Democrats also are eying about $13 million that remains in the city’s rainy day fund, as well as a stabilization fund that contains $80 million. Ballard created that fund last year using money from the utilities sale to help maintain the city’s AAA credit rating.
 

The image that has been developing in my head is one of a leaky boat with a captain who is using the spare wood to build a tiki bar.  That kind of sums up what I see the Ballard administration doing by creating TIFs to capture known private investment (aka Mass Ave TIF) instead of letting the coming property taxes flow to the schools and city alike, by not sunsetting TIFs, by the airport holding on to land that should be turned over to the tax rolls.  I think Ballard/Vaughn's game plan is to allow deterioration of police and  fire numbers in order to get the public to back new taxes.

I was disheartened after last night's budget amendments didn't contain any contractual raises for IFD and IMPD, nor funding for any recruit classes either.  While Murray doesn't note the raises, at least he let us know that the Democrats leading the Council are all for keeping the IFD and IMPD head counts from dropping further.

The CIB budget hearing will be held in room 107 of the city-county building, beginning at 5:30.  The DPW budget will be discussed at the same time in room 260.

Now, if we can only talk Murray into coordinating his time off with slow need-to-know news weeks....

Frank Straub - The Timex Public Safety Director

I admit I only saw part of last night's marathon Public Safety committee grilling of Director Frank Straub live last night and viewed about an hour of the public comments this morning.  Today's IndyStar piece by Jon Murray focuses less on the meeting than a new direction for policing in Indianapolis (see "Straub plan concentrates IMPD patrols in Indy's most troubled areas").

I continue to believe that Indy needs new direction for its police department, but I am outside of my knowledge base to fully understand if Straub is the right man for the job or not.  I suspect most citizens are in the same boat as I.  I also hear more backlash because Straub is an outsider than any other point of critique.  I continue to support an outsider to lead our public safety.

I remember every few months before Straub was appointed, some police officer or a couple, were arrested for corruption or accused of brutality.  That parade should have given pause to all of us who want their protection, not their abuse of power.  I suspect nearly every other city would have had an investigation to see just how extensive that corruption was.  We did not.  So, I was content with bringing in an 'outsider' who would not be involved in the cliques that always operate in any human endeavor.

The arrest of officers and misconduct of officers has slowed considerably.  The best practices from other parts of the US are being brought here to help make IMPD more effective.  And, isn't that what we want?

Straub has some demerits on furnishing his office when the money could be better spent, and most recently claiming a budget deficit so enormous that stations would have to go dark - a matter that now is said to be under control, instead - and he is involved in poor relationships with key community leaders both inside policing and outside. 

With all of this, isn't it curious that IFD, which has not been a focus for reform, has also avoided the friction that centers around Straub when IMPD is mentioned?

I know most public commentary will be against Straub.  But, I am going to go against the grain here and stick with him.  Not because Straub is perfect, but because he has brought about some changes in IMPD that we have needed. 

Public Safety Budget 'Shortfalls' Meeting

I was unable to view all 5 hours of last night's Public Safety committee meeting where claimed shortfalls in the Sheriff and IMPD budgets were discussed.  I have to carve out some time to view it from the WCTY archives.  Jon Murray, IndyStar reporter, has an article in today's paper.  Murray reports that Frank Straub, Public Safety Director, now claims a $15 million shortfall that extends beyond IMPD.  Personally, I remain sceptical of Straub's claims, while Sheriff John Layton made an excellent presentation at last year's budget hearings that convinced me back then.  What I did catch last night was primarily the Sheriff's budget issues, so I really need to hear what Straub had to say before etching my gut a priori feelings in stone.

With all that said, I hope the following did come up last night.

In the discussion of the Sheriff's budget, I hope someone asked :

1) why Wishard could not go back to the old system and pay the costs of arrestee care that occurs within their walls?  Health & Hospitals takes in over $109 million a year in property taxes and I don't see why we can't get some of that back.

2) at a minimum, why can't Wishard provide services free to those individuals who would qualify, had they not been arrested?

3)  when are Wishard and the Sheriff and IMPD representatives meeting to work out a better system of who really needs to be taken directly to the hospital upon arrest?

On the IMPD budget, I hope someone asked:

1) when will the $3.8 million from the CIB for super bowl expense be turned over to IMPD?

2) how much did it really cost IMPD and the rest of Public Safety for the Super Bowl?

3) why doesn't the CIB repay IMPD the $32 million it was loaned (according to former Council President, Ryan Vaughn) ?

4) how come you could make it on far less in previous years, but this year you just have to set records for expenditures?

5) how come at budget time you said character 3 was short by $3.5 million, but now your estimates are that it is at least $10 million short?  How did you mis-estimate the budget need by that much?

Budget Problems for Public Safety?

I noted in the last of my blog entries on the 2012 City-County budget, that there were some time bombs in it (see "2012 Budget Is Done").  Well, looks like notice is being paid to an 'emergency' in public safety.  Television news has reported on matters arising in the March 5 meeting of the Criminal Justice Planning Council (view the meeting for yourself in the WCTY archive, WRTV, WISH,  and FOX).  Council President, Maggie Lewis, has called an emergency meeting of the Public Safety committee for Wednesday, to discuss the budget shortfalls with Marion County Sheriff John Layton, Public Safety Director Frank Straub, and City Controller Jeff Spaulding.

A few folks have asked me about these claims, given that I followed the budget so closely for the past few years.  So, I slogged through the minutes etc from budget time, and I will recap what I can.

First, a few notes about the Criminal Justice Planning Council (CJPC) meeting.  The Marion County Sheriff's budget issues was an agenda item.  Sheriff John Layton talked about the same things he discussed back during the 2012 budget hearing (see the minutes from the September 7, 2011, Public Safety committee meeting) - unfunded mandates for Wishard services and the City-County building security contract with Securitec - amounting to a $12 - 15 million shortfall annually.  In September, Sheriff Layton spoke also of the nearly $10 million owed to Corrections Corporation of America, who runs Jail II.  These were due to ballooning costs for inmate medical care suddenly being charged by Wishard in 2010 and 2011, and not covered in the contract with CCA.  This backlog was taken care of by Prop 2011, 365, which appropriated $9.9 million to be paid to CCA for the outstanding balance.  In addition, a $1.5 million payment to the pension fund was fully addressed at budget time. Still the 2012 budget held unfunded mandates for Wishard charges, the Securitec contract, health insurance for employees, and contractual raises that would account for Layton's $12 - 15 million shortfall.  Rather than waiting for a bailout that may not come at the end of the year, Layton is considering pulling his staff from Wishard and stop transporting those in jail to the Courts, saving overtime payments and better matching his resources and obligations.

Now, some of what went on at the meeting was pre-arranged and may very well be motivated by party politics.  Nonetheless, Sheriff Layton's budget story has not changed, and he was up front back in September about all of this.

IMPD's budget may be different, however.  At the CJPC meeting, it almost seemed that Dr. Straub was piping up with new information, so as to not be left out of any re-budgeting efforts.  He said he might have to shut off the lights in some districts by the end of the month to compensate for an immediate hole of $10 million in character 3 appropriations.  Now, character 3 covers 'other services and charges', as opposed to personnel costs.  Straub did not give specifics other than saying the FOP wants new cars as half of the police cars have more than 100,000 miles on them.  If you know me at all, you know I am unsympathetic about a perceived need for a 3 year vehicle replacement plan - especially when times are as tough as they are right now.

The 2012 budget for IMPD seemed to be 1% less than the 2011, but, as I noted at the time, previous budgets were supplemented at the end of the year, making the cuts more like 5% (see "IMPD Budgets Show 5% Cut").  As I noted at the time, this did not give me much heartburn since it appeared that the IMPD budgets were padded, as they never seemed to spend as much as they requested.  Still, there was the upcoming Super Bowl, with IMPD costs of unknown magnitude (and still unknown), as well as a -$4 million placeholder that, to my knowledge, never was settled before the passage of the budget.  These placeholders were insidious, and are the 'time bombs' I was referring to in my posts about the budget.  These were the total amounts of cuts that each department or agency had to include in their budget.  But, many kept the negative number in their budget, without specifying whether personnel would be cut or if contracts would be curtailed or some other allotment of the cuts would be structured.  This left the questioning by Councillors quite impotent.  They would review the adequacy of the items that appeared fully funded.  And when attention was drawn to the large negative placeholder, there was no discussion about the realistic impacts on the budget items before them.

I did review the minutes of the September 21st meeting of the Public Safety committee, which was the hearing for IMPD's budget.  At that time, Straub did mention, on questioning by Councillor Aaron Freeman (page 7 of the pdf), that there was a $3.3 million shortfall in character 3.  The most jarring item, though, is found on page 11 of the pdf. The Council President, Ryan Vaughn is noted as saying

that IMPD has loaned over $32 million to the CIB on a contingency basis.  In addition, Director Straub has gotten over 120 grants, but these grants are contracts, and some of them come with unfunded mandates of over $2 billion.  He said public safety cannot be run on a contingent basis.

That's real money in exceptional sums.  There is a need to find out more about this topic, for sure.

The meeting of the Public Safety committee is this Wednesday at 5:30 pm.  The CJPC voted to have a budget solution proposal for Public Safety by the time it meets in April.  We will see what comes of all this, but we need to keep in mind that the City does not print money nor have the authority to raise taxes more than the State Legislature allows.  A solution may be in the offing, as $10 to $20 million could be pried from fund balances this year.  But, little fat, if any, is left for 2013, which is said to have a $50 - 70 million shortfall looming - and I can believe that.  Structural changes to the City's budget may be needed soon, if not this year, as the fund balances are slim, the rainy day fund is gone, the consolidated downtown TIF can't be relied upon a 2nd time, and the stimulus funds are no longer being offered.

Options are limited.  We shall see what comes of the attention being paid to the Sheriff's and IMPD's budgets.

IMPD Budget Shows 5% Cut

The introduced 2012 budget is curious in many ways.  Some of the anomalies will surface in this blog entry.  The topic for this morning is the fact that the 2012 IMPD budget is 95% of the 2011 budget - and why I care and why I don't care.

Why I care is easy - Because Mayor Ballard, in his introduction of the budget to the Council, said

The 2012 budget proposal reflects my commitment to public safety. I’ve proposed flat line spending for all public safety and criminal justice agencies, which together consume 85 percent of the 2012 general fund budget.

This is Mayor Ballard's fourth budget, and the fourth time that the facts did not support what he told the public and the press.  I care because I believe that the public has a right to know the truth at all times.

Why I don't care about the 5% decrease is more involved in how IMPD has approached budgeting in the past and what that likely means for the introduced budget.

Lets start with the 2012 budget for IMPD that is under consideration by the Council.  It calls for a total of $192 million.  For the current 2011 budget, IMPD got $199 million, plus it was just appropriated an additional $2.7 million through Prop 171 (see "The Public's Right To Know - Dragging The Super Bowl Expenditures Out Into The Open"), for a grand total of $202 million.

So, simple math -- the difference between the current 2011 budget and the proposed 2012 budget amounts to a 5% cut.

I must stop here to mention one of the 'anomolies' that I alluded to.  That is the use of placeholders to represent budget cuts that have been demanded by the Controller, but the Departments have not yet decided exactly where to fit into the line items.  This was the case for the Parks budget, with a -$1 million line item.  It was the case for the Superior Courts, with a more modest -$21,000 line item.

For the IMPD budget there is actually a -$4 million placeholder that has not been distributed into the various line items.  Will it go into salaries, supplies, third party contracts?  At this moment, nobody in the public can really know.  We'll have to wait until September 21, when they will hand out changes in the line item budgets just before the Public Safety Committee meeting starts.  And then we have to hope that, unlike Parks and the Superior Courts, officials have actually made the decision on where to allocate the cuts.

There is another interesting line item that I just don't know how to interpret.  That is the line item for 'lease and rental of equipment'.  The 2010 actual spend on this line was $2.4 m, the 2011 adopted budget for this line was $8.5 m, but the 2012 introduced budget for this line is -$733,287.  Curious.

And last on my 'anomalies' list, there is no footprint in the introduced IMPD budget of any portion of the $4.2 m 'donation' from the CIB to cover super bowl expenses.  The overtime line item actually drops from $7.2 m to $6.5 m.

So why don't I care that the IMPD budget is being cut by 5%?

First, this is the second Ballard budget where revenue drops, and the first where real cuts of significant amounts must be made.  I mention in my last post (see "Is The Sale Of City Assets The Real Reason For This Year's Budget Chrunch [sic]?"), that the drop in tax revenues is relatively modest and handled by the 6% reduction requested of all non-public safety departments.  The real hit to the budget appears to be another $50 million, and stem from the sale of the sewer utility and the parking meters.  So, even though I disagreed with those sales, they still must be dealt with in this and future budgets.  In my opinion, that means that we must make cuts in all departments and not spare some, especially those with the largest dollar appropriations and therefore the most wiggle room.

Second is the apparent practice of IMPD to pad its budgets significantly.  If you look back through the last few years' budgets you find this:

2009 budget
In 2008, a budget for 2009 was adopted for a total of $222 million
In 2009, while the next year's budget was introduced, the projected spend for IMPD in 2009 was noted as $192 million
In 2010, the actual 2009 spend was reported as $187 million - a full 15.8% less than the adopted amount

2010 budget
In 2009, a budget for 2010 was adopted for a total of $210 million
In 2010, while the next year's budget was introduced, the projected spend for IMPD in 2010 was noted as $208 million
In 2011, the actual 2010 spend was reported as $196 million - a more modest 6.7% less than the adopted amount

The third reason is the Hummer I saw parked near City Hall one day with IMPD logos on it and an additional decal thanking the crooks for the car.  I assume it was forfeited as property obtained through drug trafficking.  But, come on boys (and girls).  Did you HAVE to keep the Hummer, or did you just want to drive around in it?  These are tough times and all of our public servants should abandon ostentatious and unnecessary displays of opulence.  I know this is a petty reason on my part.  But, keeping that car and trying to justify it on the car itself was petty on the part of whoever made that decision.

With these large budgets, a million is less than a percent.  But, it is real money that can be used elsewhere and not tied up in a game of pad the budget.

We'll have to wait for the updated line item expenditures to see where IMPD officials allocate the $4 million in budget cuts, over and above the nearly $6 million cut already distributed among line items, to be sure where the fallout will be felt.  At that time we can all decide what we think is fair and prudent cuts for IMPD in a particularly bad year for the budget.

Council Committee Meets Tonight on IMPD & IFD Budgets

The Public Safety committee of the City-County Council will hold its review and public hearing on the IMPD and IFD budgets tonight, October 6, beginning at 5:30 pm in room 260 of the City-County Building.

The overall IMPD budget will see a $7 million dollar drop, due entirely to a reduction in federal grants and stimulus money. Looking solely at personal services (salary and benefits), there is a slight, $1 m, increase over this year, to $164 million. All other budget categories show cuts. The total IMPD budget for 2011 is proposed to be $201 million.

The overall IFD budget is proposed to grow by $1.5 million, despite a $1 m drop in federal grants. The personal services segment of the 2011 IFD budget, is proposed to grow by $2.8 m, to $112.8 m. Most other categories decrease. The overall budget totals $126.9 million for 2011.

The review of these budgets was postponed from their original schedule, so that this committee could consider several proposals to raise the standards of, and to review the practices of, IMPD, that grew out of recent events. I saw part of that meeting on WCTY, as it was held. I had hoped to review the entire meeting, but my time got spent elsewise. The part of the discussion and review of these proposals that I did see, was one of the most refreshing displays I have seen in some time at the Council. It sure would be nice if this type of cooperation could be the norm. Our community could only benefit.

Plethora of IMPD Fallout Articles

Today's Indy Star seems to be non-stop pieces on IMPD and how to clean it up. Yes, folks, we are no longer discussing a 'few bad apples', we are now discussing an errant culture.

We begin with the front page article by Francesca Jarosz, "Leaders: Change how IMPD operates". In this piece, Jarosz covers a new proposal by Council President, Ryan Vaughn, and Councillor Ben Hunter. Hunter Chairs the Public Safety Committee and is a former IPD officer himself. They have proposed a 10-point plan that they intend to bring to the Council in September.

Jarosz writes:

But Vaughn and Hunter say their reforms have less to do with the latest tribulations than a long-standing culture of problems within IMPD.

"This is a two-decades-old problem," said Hunter, an 11-year Indianapolis police officer who now leads Butler University's police department. "People have treated the symptom but not the root cause. There needs to be a shift to raise the bar."

FOP President, William Owensby, who likely would have hated these suggestions had Public Safety Director Frank Straub uttered them, thinks

"Generally speaking, there are a lot of good points in this," Owensby said. "Some may be a little overzealous, but they're on the right track."

I have two thoughts tangential to the proposed changes for IMPD being offered by Vaughn and Hunter. 1) They may not realize it, but they are acting as leaders, in the forefront on the IMPD issue, and making Mayor Greg Ballard look weak. It looks for all the world as if Ballard does not have their confidence when it comes to IMPD, or they would have asked him to offer their suggestions as his own. 2) Since it is now clear that there is an issue of an errant culture within IMPD, the public deserves to have an outside team of experts look at the extend of this errant culture and propose changes that come from a broader expertise in such matters.

Overall, I am glad that proposals are on the table. But, without full disclosure of what the problems are, it is difficult to know if what is being proposed is a cure or a distraction.

There is also an editorial by the Star Editorial Board, "Angry critics target wrong guy". They try to make the case that Straub is getting it from all sides, when he has had little time to effect any real changes in IMPD to "carry out his mandate for improving IMPD ". This editorial comes close to talking about a cultural problem within the organization by saying:

In hiring a new public safety director, city officials said they wanted an impartial boss to take on the task of tightening police accountability and restoring public trust. At this early stage, it is clear Straub is trying to fill that role.

I don't know if Straub is the 'right guy' or not. But, somebody needs to be able to gain the trust of the public, and that is not happening at this moment. If that somebody is going to tick off the FOP, which Straub is doing quite well, then that somebody must have an even greater amount of public confidence that they are the 'right guy'. At this moment, Straub, with the help of Mayor Ballard, must make the case that he is the 'right guy at the right time', or he will not be able to be effective - no matter what his skills and talents really are.

Then we have the spotlight Letter to the Editor, authored by Robert Vane, with Mayor Greg Ballard's picture and name on the piece. In "We'll restore your faith in police", the focal point appears to be for the Mayor to say the things that need to be said to quell the anger over the Bissard case. To this he says:

The incident in which officer David Bissard took the life of motorcyclist Eric Wells and critically injured Mary Mills and Kurt Weekly is infuriating, disheartening and inexcusable on every level.

Officer Bissard initiated a chain of events that cannot be taken back. There is no excuse for his actions and the tragic consequences that followed. He has caused unthinkable pain to the victims and their families, his own family, and his fellow officers.

This is a terrible tragedy for the victims, their families, the citizens of our great city, and the IMPD officers who bravely put on their uniforms every day and dutifully honor the public trust.

My responsibility, and the job for the department, is to take steps to make sure this never happens again.

All that the Mayor said here rings true. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt it is enough to quell the rising anger. With the motorcycle community coming into Indy from all over the world this weekend for the MotoGP at the Speedway and the the Indy Mile at the Fairgrounds, the Mayor's Letter is timely, but can not match the swelling numbers. From my experience in daily conversations with a certain motorcycle enthusiast to whom I am wed, Bissard's actions are inexcusable AND serve almost as an allegory for life on the road as a motorcyclist. Wells, Mills, and Weekly were stopped when Bissard came tearing down the road. They did exactly what they were supposed to do in staying put. Yet, they were the first to receive the blame of the police and the press. They were the victims in more ways than one. My husband has always told me that the most difficult issue with motorcycle safety is that so many other drivers simply do not see them. For three of their own to be at a complete stop, obeying every law and tactical driving rule, to be killed or seriously injured by a police officer, drunk, behind the wheel, on duty, and then to be blamed for the accident -- well, how could it get any worse? They are all Wells and Mills and Weekly.

Just as every African-American is Brandon Johnson.

Mayor Ballard is in cyclone here. One of fury at current events of police misconduct and one of fury at a longer term perception of racial bias in the treatment of citizens by the police. This is where leadership is tested. Usually letting heads roll like the Red Queen, will begin to quell anger as it implies that the one in charge sees the exact problem and has an exact, very public, solution to it. But, that is not working in this instance. Now, adding to the cyclone, he has two fellow Republicans, Vaughn and Hunter, who undoubtedly are trying to assist and find a lasting solution, but who in actuality are taking the spotlight and making Ballard look ineffective at a critical moment when he MUST be in charge and absolutely effective. Plus, their proposal and the time it takes to get through the Council, will only serve to make the Mayor look tepid for another two months.

Mayor Ballard's military experience was as part of the chain of command - somewhere in the middle to top. Now his role is more like that of the President in regard to the military - the Commander in Chief and civilian. The leadership needed at this level is different. He must be in front of the parade, not somewhere in its midst. He needs to find a way here - and not just for his reelection efforts, but also for the residents, for the officers, and for the reputation of Indianapolis.

Is It Time?

Is it time for an external review of the culture within IMPD? I throw this out there, because I certain believe it is time to give voice to the idea.

When Frank Straub was name Director of Public Safety, I was cautiously optimistic for two reasons. First, it appeared he wanted IMPD to be a data driven organization, which would continue the best point of Scott Newman's term in that position. Second, Staub was an outsider. Why was that important? Because I figured an outsider was the best person to spot misdeeds within IMPD.

Over at Advance Indiana, Gary Welsh has brought forward some disturbing characterizations of how Straub operates as Director of Public Safety (see "Straub Draws Ire of IMPD", and "The Straub Meltdown Continues"). I find my reaction to Welsh's posts a bit complicated by my hope that Straub could or would continue Newman's attempts to clean up the department. While the accusations aired on AI clearly paint a picture of more than poor management skills, I also have to wonder why they are coming to light. Is it because Straub's skills are undermining important department esprit de corps, or because Straub is trying to clean up the department, or both? Or, something else altogether? I don't know and I am leaving those questions up in the air.

If you remember back a few years, after Scott Newman became Director of Public Safety, there was a string of incidents and revelations involving IMPD officers. That string of incidents and revelations continue under Straub.

Narcotics officers were stealing drugs and money from criminals. These officers were tried and convicted. "A few bad apples", we were told. Quite possibly true.

Then, there was what seemed like an entire squadron of off-duty officers who were working for a scrap metal operation, Omnisource, including the top cop responsible for inspections who cited a competitor for what may have been illegal activity. The internal investigation ended, but rumors persist of an FBI investigation still ongoing. "Nothing to see here, move along", was sort of the message.

The Lincoln Plowman affair, that either has to do with his role as Councillor or IMPD officer, but which led to his resignation from IMPD just as he was about to be fired. For what, we do not yet know.

The investigation of Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, which may not exactly involve IMPD, but does involve the carriage of justice in our County. Like the Plowman affair, still being investigated ever so slowly.

There is the use of excessive force that left Brandon Johnson's face as clear testimony. One officer fired over that.

Now we have IMPD Officer David Bisard's curious treatment at the scene of an accident that he caused and which left one motorcyclist dead and two others in serious condition. The officers on the scene insist that Bisard did not appear to be drunk, no field sobriety test was done, no blood test was done for two hours, and when it was done, the person drawing the blood was not trained properly for performing that role in a criminal investigation. This blunder, or bungling, or turning a blind eye, or deliberate coverup, has even embarrassed Carl Brizzi to the point he does want it to tarnish his image. Director Straub is calling in the FBI, which is a positive move, but which clearly recognizes that the public will not trust the outcome of any internal investigation.

Maybe it is time for an outside review of the culture within IMPD. Not by a committee of local radio talk show hosts, either. But by an outside group who understand how police departments should operate, how they do operate, and how they hide things when they operate beyond the best interests of the public. They should understand the positive role of the 'thin blue line' to camaraderie, but know the signs for when it has morphed into the thick blue wall that only serves to hide an 'anything goes' attitude. They should know how to entice officers to come forward with information about other officers; just like IMPD is trying entice residents to come forward.

I'm not saying they will find anything. Maybe all the bad apples are gone. Maybe that's all it ever has been. But, there are just too many incidents and too long a string of disclosures to feel comfortable with that conclusion just looking in at IMPD from the outside.

Is it time for an outside investigation of IMPD's culture? Maybe. But, it is certainly time to entertain the idea.

Confusion Reigns in Plowman Affair

Confusion is the only word that can describe the state of affairs with Councillor Lincoln Plowman. Today's Indianapolis Star article by Francesca Jarosz "Plowman to leave IMPD, reports say", says Plowman will retire from his IMPD post, but leaves things up in the air as to his Council seat.

Jarosz reports in part:

A city-county councilman and assistant police commander who has been under investigation for more than a month is expected to retire from the department Monday.

But it remained unclear Friday whether Lincoln Plowman's anticipated departure would shed light on the investigation. Details of the inquiry have been kept sealed since he was placed on administrative leave from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department on Feb. 3.

Also uncertain is whether Plowman, a Republican who represents the city's Southeastside, will remain in his council seat. Some council members say his departure from the department would bring them closer to asking for his resignation.

Meanwhile the new blog 'Indy's Political Stock Exchange' provides a link to a WTHR report that says Plowman will resign both his IMPD and Council positions.

WTHR, in part, reports the following:

Sources tell Eyewitness News that City-County Council member Lincoln Plowman plans to resign from his job on the council as well as his position with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police force.

Plowman has been under investigation over the past several weeks but even he says he does not know what the investigation is concerning.

The 21-year police veteran works as a major for Metro Police. He is currently on paid administrative leave during the unspecified investigation. The 30-day paid leave ended on Friday.

Jarosz further reports in her Star article, that :

Plowman's decision comes as public safety leaders prepare to make a ruling on his future with IMPD. His 30 days of paid administrative leave ended Friday, leaving public safety officials with a choice: reinstate Plowman to the department or suspend him without pay.

The latter decision would have started Plowman's termination from IMPD. The Indianapolis Star's sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, say Plowman chose to retire in anticipation of strong action from the department.

Plowman, who has served on the Police and Sheriff's departments for 21 years, did not respond to e-mails Friday, and his cell phone number was disconnected.

Frank Straub, the city's public safety director, confirmed that he planned to meet with Plowman and his attorneys Monday to discuss Plowman's status with IMPD, but he would not elaborate.

Looks like Monday will be a pivotal day for Lincoln Plowman. I firmly believe that those under investigation are not necessarily guilty of anything. And, I firmly believe that those who get a lawyer are not necessarily guilty of anything. The right of presumed innocent until proven guilty must extend to all of us, including police officers, Councillors, and average citizens alike. But, at some point, the public's right to know needs to be activated because Lincoln Plowman is both a police officer and a City-County Councillor and the public deserves to know if his service on either of those fronts is in question.

Keeping Our Fingers Crossed on Murders

Following on the heels of the Forbes 'safest cities' faux pas, the Star lends a hand to Mayor Ballard by running a piece in today's edition on how we just might squeak through 2009 with fewer than 100 murders. That sure would be nice.

For those who like to follow these things, BartLies.com devotes at least 95% of its efforts to real time tracking of murders in our community.

Community policing gets the nod as to what is having an impact. Of course, trends up in violent crime are usually credited to increased percentages of teenage youth in a community or something equally outside of public safety control, while dropping rates are credited to some police action. That aside, Scott Newman's analytical approach to proving that something works, then repeating those proven activities, was a real advantage in our City. Hopefully that emphasis is not gone with his departure.

Let's keep our fingers crossed that there indeed are fewer than 100 homicides in Indianapolis in 2009. Then lets keep our fingers crossed that IMPD can pinpoint how to keep that number dropping.