Vernon Brown Resigns Council Seat

One of my favorite Councillors is resigning his Council seat, effective August 1. 

Vernon Brown has represented parts of Warren Township since 2003.  He works as a Battalion Chief for IFD, and according to a new state law, cannot serve on the Council in a new term, since the Council oversees IFD's budget. 

He is currently running for Warren Township Trustee.  The City-County 2015 budget process should begin within the next couple of weeks and stretch through to early October.  The budget is time-consuming and effort-zapping.  Brown doesn't want to short change either the budget process or his campaign, so has taken the step to move forward with the campaign.

I'll miss Brown on the Council.  We certainly don't agree on everything, but that's not why I like someone anyway.  Whenever I asked Brown a question, he always answered it straight.  He's a what-you-see-is-what-you-get kind of guy; and I appreciate that forthrightness.

I'll particularly miss his occasional back and forth repartee with fellow Warren Councillor, Ben Hunter.  It was often the only real public discussion of some rather important issues.  I don't know if Hunter will miss them as much as I, but he gave as good as he got.

So, I just wanted to take a moment to thank Vernon Brown for his service to the community through his work on the Council.  Good luck, be safe, and thank you.

Council ROC Review Committee Includes District Councillor and Original Lease Proposal Co-Author, Ben Hunter

The Council has taken on the task of investigating the lease agreement for the Regional Operations Center.  Unfortunately, they include on the ten member committee, Councillor Ben Hunter, a co-author of the Council Proposal that authorized the lease and the home Councillor of the ROC itself.

The others appointed are: Councillors Freeman, Gray, Hickman, Mansfield, Miller, Osili, Pfisterer, Sandlin and Simpson.

The announcement, put out on behalf of the Council and listing Simpson as the media contact is as follows:

Indianapolis– On Monday, October 14, 2013, the City-County Council unanimously passed a resolution establishing a special investigating committee regarding the lease for the Regional Operations Center (ROC), located at 401 North Shadeland Avenue (the old Eastgate Consumer Mall facility), entered into by the Department of Public Safety (DPS).  Council Resolution No. 63, 2013 (Proposal No. 332, 2013) calls for an investigation to be conducted examining why DPS entered into an allegedly unfavorable long-term lease, whether or not the information provided to the Council with regard to the lease was complete and accurate, whether there are other such leases with unfavorable terms entered into by DPS or other departments and agencies, and whether the City has made other formal or informal commitments relating to the ROC lease that have not yet been disclosed. 

Earlier this year, it came to the Council’s attention that the Office of Corporation Counsel and the City Controller both allegedly refused to sign the original lease, which contains many unusual provisions that are highly unfavorable to the City.  The current Director of DPS, Troy Riggs, recently ordered the evacuation of the facility due to allegedly unsafe conditions, and there are reports that the drawings of the facility originally submitted to the Council are substantially different from the facility the owner was told to build, and that DPS may have entered into additional “confidential agreements” with the owners. 

Following passage of the resolution, the Council appointed a ten-member bi-partisan committee made up of the following members of the Council:  Aaron Freeman, Monroe Gray, Jr., Pamela Hickman, Benjamin Hunter, Angela Mansfield, Jeff Miller, Vop Osili, Marilyn Pfisterer, Jack Sandlin, and Joseph Simpson.  Councillor Joseph Simpson, who was designated by the President of the Council to serve as committee chair, stated, “This committee process provides an opportunity to gain a clearer understanding about how the ROC lease was put into place; and, more importantly, to understand how City business practices and related legislative policies can be strengthened to avoid a similar situation in the future.” 

The committee will hold its first meeting on Monday, November 4, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 260 on the second floor of the City-County Building, 200 E. Washington Street. 

There Needs to Be an Independent Investigation of the ROC Deal

Tracing the tentacles of this deal are madding.

I refer to the deal made to lease space in the old Eastgate Mall for a Regional Operations Center - in time for the 2012 SuperBowl.  The ROC was to be used as the heart of surveillance for the public gatherings - Homeland Security, IMPD, IFD central commands combined with federal agencies in one spot away from the action downtown.

The latest tentacles to be revealed were broadcast during last night's WTHR 11 O'clock news.  Sandra Chapman did an interview with Alex Carroll, owner of the facility.  He discloses that there was a secret deal with the City that involved a sizable up front payment to him, and that the City was responsible for drafting the lopsided lease agreement that puts all of the maintenance burden on the taxpayers.

Gary Welsh, over at Advance Indiana, did an excellent job of recapping the interview and putting what is known about the whole deal in perspective.  Previously, Paul Ogden described how lopsided the agreement is and that representatives of City Legal and the City Controller refused to sign off on the lease - leaving then Public Safety Director, Frank Straub, on his own (see here and here)

There must be an independent investigation of this deal.  All business conducted on behalf of the public must be made public - there can be no secret deals.  What is disclosed to the public must be accurate - officials cannot say they are making lease payments when they are paying off a loan directly.  The City may not take out a loan.  The City cannot float a bond without disclosing what that bond is to be used for and what dedicated revenue stream will repay it.

At this point it is unclear IF there was a secret deal, IF there was a sizable upfront payment and how much that was, IF there was a concerted effort to keep information from most of the Council and the public, IF there is a bank loan or a bond, and IF campaign contributions were part of the big picture.

The lease was put forth as Prop 102, 2011 with no lease details.  It originally was for 210,000 square feet, but that was reduced to 76,000 square feet before passage by the full Council on May 16, 2011.  The sponsors of the proposed lease were Councillors Ben Hunter and Mary Moriarty Adams.  The Eastgate Mall is in Hunter's district, but almost in Adams'.  At the time, Hunter Chaired the Public Safety Committee and Adams was the senior Democrat on that committee.

Below I have embedded a portion of the April 12, 2011 meeting of the Admin & Finance committee meeting - the first of two committee meetings to consider this lease.  This portion begins after Homeland Security Director Gary Coons' half hour presentation on what a ROC would be and why one was needed.  The embedded portion are the questions that the Councillors had.  Jon Mayes, Deputy Director, Special Counsel for the City responded to the questions.  It is instructive as to how little information these committee members were given initially.  Look for Councillor Barbara Malone's question of whether there any upfront fee for renovation of the facility and Councillor Jackie Nytes inquiry as to whether construction had already begun on the facility.

The answers by Mr. Mayes include that this was to be a 20 year lease, with no upfront money and all construction and renovation costs amortized in the lease payments.  Those payments were to be $1.2 million per year.  The Proposal was amended later and his statements may only refer to the introduced situation.  Construction had already begun on this site by the time the committee was given Prop 102 to consider.

There needs to be a full vetting of exactly what the arrangements were, who authorized them, and how honest everyone has been in divulging the details of that arrangement.

The Insane Priorities of the Ballard Administration

The first half of at least $5.8 million from RebuildIndy funds to be used for the insane cricket/Gaelic sports complex in Councillor Ben Hunter's district was spent yesterday.  This action comes despite no basis in sanity for such a complex and despite no private partner to help with the cost and/or to reap the Ballard fantasize rewards.

Fellow blogger Gary Welsh put it well this morning over on Advance Indiana:

Streets and sidewalks are crumbling, crime is skyrocketing, IMPD has fewer police officers patrolling the streets than the day Mayor Greg Ballard took office in January, 2008 and the budgets of city agencies across the board are being slashed to make up for a multi-million dollar budget deficit, but Mayor Greg Ballard insists on spending millions of dollars intended for infrastructure improvements on a new world sports park on the city's east side that he hopes will play host to international cricketing events.
 

IndyStar reporter, Jon Murray, reports that none of the three Council appointees showed up for the vote.  The three Board of Public Works appointees from the Mayor's office joined with DPW Director, Lori Miser, to vote 4-0 in favor.

The Council appointees need to explain why they were not there, especially given the gravity of the vote.  The Council Democrat leadership wants to say the Council has been cut out of this decision, but that is not entirely so.  Ducking important issues by standing on the sidelines is not leadership.  The lack of votes by the three Council appointees, if left unexplained, leaves the option that the Democrat leadership wants this cricket nonsense to go forward as much as Ballard does, as a reasonable opinion for members of the public to hold.

I do have to note that some Councillors did weigh in - as I cited two days ago -- Councillors Zach Adamson and Christine Scales, in particular.

Meanwhile, the priorities of the Ballard administration continue to spiral out of the realm of an sane policy and have clearly entered the Twilight Zone. 

Let us all remember this come budget time, when the Council Democrat leadership and the Ballard administration join hands to eliminate the Homestead Credit from property tax bills and when they cut services and when they lay off cops and firefighters (either directly or through attrition).  Let us remember the insanity of this cricket crap.

Council Republicans - Its Obvious Now, They'll Never Stand Up To Vaughn

Mayor Ryan Vaughn has a bullying problem - and his cohorts on the Council have not taken him on, even when it means they cannot fulfill the job they were elected to do because of his vindictive vetoes of the Council-passed budget.

Much like a wife beater who blames their battered spouse, claiming he just wanted to 'have a conversation', Vaughn has lashed out at the Democrats, crippling the Council budget and that of every other duly elected Democrat in County government, but denying any responsibility for his outlandish, brutish actions.  According to his enablers, he was forced to do it because the Democrats would not talk with him and all he wants to do is 'have a conversation'.

The Republicans voted in lockstep on each and every vote last night to override Vaughn's vetoes of the budget (Councillors Scales, Gooden, and Freeman were absent).  If there were any time they should have stood up to Vaughn, it surely was when the vote was to override his veto of the Council's entire character 3 budget.  That is their budget.  I now have to give up hope that the Council will ever be more than an appendage of whoever is Mayor, not the independent body we should have.

Let's look at all the alternatives Vaughn had at his disposal.

1) Do nothing except use his soap box to cast derision upon the Democrat led Council.  He and his PR firm have been successful in getting the editorial writers at the Star and IBJ to denounce the Council's efforts to be circumspect and responsible in passing his TIF districts.  He has been successful in his behind the scenes blackmail and threats and pretending to share power with the greedy and ambitious.  But, that was not enough.  The Council had the audacity to disobey Vaughn.  They wanted a recruit class for IMPD and IFD - and they found a way to fund it.  They did not want to do as they were told and rejected the elimination of the homestead credit - a credit that the Republican controlled Council chose to fund with COIT money just three years ago, after the property tax caps were in full effect.  No, this was not an option for someone who will not be disobeyed.

2) Send down only the commentary on the $15 M PILOT that the Council required of the CIB.  This statement said that if the money were ever actually collected, Vaughn would veto any attempt to spend the funds.  This totally blocks the purpose of the PILOT, yet still leaves the door open for cooperation in the future.  Such a move would be enough if the aim were to have a balanced budget that worked for everyone in 2013.  That, however, was never the aim.

3) Send down the commentary on the PILOT and cut the Council budget by $652,654 in character 3.  The point in vetoing the Council budget is to keep the Council from introducing its own Council District maps and litigating those maps in court.  That amounts to $100,000.  That may be less than the raises Vaughn and his buddies on the 25th floor got, but it represents independent thinking and that shall not be tolerated in a Vaughn administration.  Gutting the ability of the Council to pay the rent, pay the light bill, hire attorneys or their CFO, or to even pay to put public notices in the paper as required by law will cripple the ability of duly elected officials, Republican and Democrat alike, to do their job.  President Maggie Lewis notes in a letter to constituents that this veto is "political bullying at work, not leadership".

4) None of these options being enough, Vaughn's next step would be to add the veto of the use of the money in the County General Fund for any County agency.  This is the big one - $31.8 million.  It cannot be said often enough that this is the part of the budget left untouched by the Council and it was pretty much what the introduced budget included.  At this point, logic left the building.  This is shear and naked vindictiveness.  Not that long ago, the County was under court order to bring its housing of inmates into line with human dignity.  Public safety is not just the cops on the streets, its the jail and the courts as well.  Job one in the Vaughn administration is not public safety, job one is not getting contradicted by the Council - and making sure they feel the pain if they get out of line.  Vaughn was a total coward when it came to cutting off the funding for the County agencies.  He is letting the DLGF decide exactly where those cuts will fall, instead of making those choices as part of his veto package.

5) And still - with the pain pushed to every corner of County government except those departments controlled by the Mayor's office - and still, this was not enough.  This last step was surely the most illuminating.  The Council had the temerity to create a subfund in the city's general fund that could only be used for police and fire recruiting and training. It was empty, but could be filled with any source of funds, including those from the $15 M CIB PILOT.  This fund caused no harm.  It was empty.  It would disappear without a fuss on December 31, 2013.  The existence of this fund, though, was more than Vaughn could stand.  It reeked of disobedience.  It had to go.

Vaughn is no longer an elected official, unlike the Councillors.  It is disheartening that those Councillors on the Republican side of the aisle would not tell Vaughn he had gone too far this time.  They enable the bully every time they acquiesce to his nasty machinations.

Instead they repeated all the falsehoods Vaughn is now trying to hide behind. 

Councillor Hunter said last night "I warned the Council the night this came up", referring to the police and fire recruit fund.

Councillor Pfisterer brought up the $35 m structural deficit not eliminating the homestead credit supposedly would cause through the end of 2014.  No alarms went out last year when the Republican controlled Council passed this year's budget using $40 m from the downtown TIF.  No alarms went out this year either, when another $10 m was pulled from the same source for next year.  And, it is factually inaccurate, to boot.  The Council's budget is as sound as the Mayor's introduced budget.  The fact of the matter is, that the recession will fade and the tax coffers will fill.  The income tax receipts are already rebounding and property values have stopped falling.  It is the Mayor's actions on TIFs that really jeopardize every taxing unit in Marion County and the services they provide.

Councillor Miller, who read a lengthy statement that demonstrates he understands exactly what is happening, bought into the idea that this is all about having a conversation.  He said "while I don't like coming to a conversation with a shotgun at my head, I have to agree that at this point a shotgun was the only way to get us to talk, and that's a shame".  That's simply not true, even though I think he believes it.  What exactly is to be discussed?  This budget process began back in August.  Plenty of time for discussion.  It was clear from the beginning that funding recruit classes was a priority of the Democrats - a goal Miller supported by the way.  Vaughn owns a phone.  Lewis owns a phone.  There could have been conversation.  These vetoes aren't about jump starting a conversation - they are about control.

I lost track of who repeated the thought that the appropriations remain, its just that the money won't be available to fund those appropriations for the County agencies.  That is clearly not true as the DLGF will insist on cutting appropriations so that the spending matches the funds available.  Whether they will wield an ax or a scalpel is unknown.

Vaughn's public display of temper will harm the Council, the County agencies, public safety, and the citizens of Indianapolis.  The least destructive road to travel at this point is for the Mayor's office to walk this back.  Allow the appropriations and funding to be reintroduced and not vetoed - and by January 1, 2013.  After that date the Council will not have the money to hold legally noticed meetings.  The shotgun Miller alludes to, is really aimed at forcing/blackmailing the Council into agreeing to raise taxes - likely in a few places besides the elimination of the homestead credit - and equally likely, pushing forward more of the Mayor's agenda.  Its not about the budget.  Its not about just wanting a conversation.  Its far more nefarious than that.  And the Council Republicans aided, abetted, and enabled Vaughn's vindictive and abusive ways.

Big Night At Rules Committee

The City-County Council Rules Committee will be taking up some big issues tonight, including partner benefits for City/County employees, and an ordinance banning blackballing of hotel workers who preveiusly worked for a temp agency. 

While most people attending will be interested in one of those two, I do want to make mention of an additional proposal that,if passed, would seek a half million loan from the state and then increase your taxes in 2013 to pay it back.  Hmmm...
Prop 168 does not say what purpose the half million would serve, just that it would be deposited in the City's Cumulative Capital Development Fund.  According to the budget for 2012, this fund was estimated to have over $3.7 million fund balance at the end of this year.  They used this fund to handle some of the property tax circuit breaker credits, eating into the over $8.8 million beginning balance. (see p 82 and 33 of the pdf) So why they need to feed this fund with a loan and add to our taxes next year is not clear.

Prop 179, sponsored by Councillor Brian Mahern, would establish a new requirement for a hotel to qualify for its annual operating license from the City.  No hotel would be able to enter into a services contract if that contract contained a stipulation that the hotel could not employ a person who had previously worked for the services agency.  This practice traps people in the employ of these temporary agencies and their attendant low wages with no benefits.  The hotels were quite happy to hide behind the skirts of the maids and other hotel workers in petitioning for more and more taxpayer funds to flow to the ICVA and the CIB - then unceremoniously cut these workers' jobs in favor of these black-hearted outsourcing agreements.
Prop 213, sponsored by Councillors Mansfield, Adamson, Barth, Hickman, Lutz and Hunter, would make various benefits available to City and County government employees who are in domestic partnerships. To qualify, the couple would have to be living together for at least one year and file a Domestic Partnership declaration the Human Resources.  The benefits provided to the partner would be the same as those now afforded to a spouse of an employee - such as health insurance and pension benefits - and family/medical leave would be provided to the employee for situations arising with their partner.  Should the domestic partners cease being a couple, HR would have to be notified immediately.  All benefits provided to a partner would be taxable to the employee.

On Prop 213, all I can say is - about time.  The State refuses to allow same sex partners to marry, stripping these couples of many legal rights married couples take for granted.  The least we can be as a City is progressive enough to provide equal benefits for partners as we provide to spouses.

The agenda for the Rules Committee lists 8 items.  The meeting will begin at 5:30 pm in the Public Assembly Room.

Good Public Policy Sets Up Tug Of War Over Council Rules Of Procedure

Councillor Ben Hunter authored Prop 44, which was introduced at the Council's January 30 meeting.

This Proposal was good public policy and deserved an open conversation as to its pros and cons.

Instead, it was quickly and indefinitely tabled at the February 21st meeting of the Rules Committee.

Prop 44 is simple.  It adds the following language to the ordinance covering the constitution of Council committees:

(c) Any councillor who is employed by another agency of local government, whose budgets or salaries are subject to action of the City-County Council, shall not be appointed to, or eligible to serve on any committee which regularly considers the budget or salaries of the agency which employes such councillor.

Given that public employees are legally allowed to serve on the elected bodies that oversee their own jobs, at least for a while longer, this proposal serves the public interest, by restricting such a public employee/elected official, from holding undue influence over their supervisors.

My review of the Council committee appointments would suggest that only Councillor Vernon Brown would be affected at this moment by this proposal.  If anyone knows of another Councillor serving on the committee that oversees their day job, please let me know.  Councillor Brown serves on the Public Safety and Criminal Justice committee that oversees his day job with IFD.  It would not harm Councillor Brown, who serves on five other Council committees, to forgo this committee.

Here is an except of the minutes of the February 21st meeting of the Rules committee :

PROPOSAL NO. 44, 2012 - amends the Code with respect to council rules for committee appointments

Councillor Gray moved, seconded by Councillor Lewis, to “Table” Proposal No. 44, 2012. The motion carried by a 4-2-1 vote, with Councillors Lutz and McQuillen casting the negative votes and Councillor Brown abstaining.  [Mahern, Barth, Gray, and Lewis voted 'aye']

Councillor Hunter stated that he understands the protocol that there is no discussion on a motion to table. However, typically a sponsor of a properly introduced proposal who comes before a committee as a non-member of that committee is usually afforded the courtesy to speak on their proposal before it is tabled. He said that it would have been nice to have been informed of the intention to table the proposal without comment before he wasted the gas money coming down to appear and present his proposal.

{Clerk’s Note: Councillor Mansfield arrived at 5:34 p.m.}

Chairman Mahern said that since the proposal has been tabled, there is no further discussion to be had.

Councillor Lutz said that there is no argument that the motion to table does not allow for further discussion. He added, however, that it would be nice in the future, as a common courtesy, that if the intention of the committee is to table a proposal without comment, that the sponsor of the proposal be informed so that they are not wasting their time.

Chairman Mahern said that if he had received any indication ahead of time that the proposal would be tabled, he would have let Councillor Hunter know, but there is no way for him to predict the intentions of the committee.

There is a little bit of gamemanship going on here from both sides.  This proposal could have been introduced any time in the last few years when Councillor Hunter's party held the majority and there would have been no threat of tabling.  Additionally, the Republicans on the Rules committee, Councillors McQuillen and Lutz, moved that the very next proposal on the agenda be tabled in retaliation.  Nonetheless, Prop 44 is good public policy and the public deserved at least an open discussion of its merits.

Now, Councillor Mike McQuillen has authored Prop 106, introduced at the last Council meeting.  This proposal would require that any introduced Council proposal be set for a public hearing within 30 days of the introduction (although the actual hearing date may be within 45 days of introduction), and that the item may not be tabled until after the sponsor of the proposal and the public have had a chance to make comments.

This is a good procedure for the Council to follow and it deserves to get an airing when the Rules committee has it on their agenda.  In the end, it should not be the back rooms where these decisions are made, but in full sunshine and public view.

Council To Meet Monday Night

The City County Council will meet this Monday night.  The big item for consideration is the extension of Indy's smoking ban (Prop 18).  But there are other proposals of interest.

There will also be the rare hearing of a zoning matter.  This is encapsulated in Prop 303, 2011.  This is petition 2011-CZN-825, which seeks to rezone 1.6 acres from medium intensity commercial uses (C-3) to mixed residential / commercial uses (C-2) to allow for construction of a multi-family building.  The address is 2855 N. Keystone.  Councillor Christine Scales has called the petition down.  It takes 18 votes to overturn a decision of the MDC.

Of the new proposals being introduced Monday night, one in particular caught my eye.  That is Prop 44, sponsored by Councillor Ben Hunter.  Prop 44 would change the ordinance governing the composition of Council Committees to add :

(c) Any councillor who is employed by another agency of local government, whose budgets or salaries are subject to action of the City-County Council, shall not be appointed to, or eligible to serve on any committee which regularly considers the budget or salaries of the agency which employes such councillor.

Prop 44 will be referred to the Rules Committee.

Fundamental Fridays

Please bear with me before you start groaning with derision.

It seems to me that there are fundamental aspects to good government and good governance.  Open, transparent, accessible government - for instance.  Working in the best interest of the community, not special interests - for instance.  Good stewardship, leadership, vision - for instance.

It also seems to me that there are folks who serve in our local government who demonstrate a fundamental aspect of good government on a daily basis, and others who do so from time to time.

Dare I say it so clearly but -- not all is wrong with our local governance.

So, in order to promote it when I see it, I am instituting a new feature to Had Enough Indy ?  It will be an award worth the paper it is written on.  I'll call it the Fundamental Friday Award - or "Fundy" for short.

The inaugural Fundy (drum roll, please) goes to Councillors Angela Mansfield, Ben Hunter, and Ryan Vaughn, and Mayor Greg Ballard.  The reason is - compromise when compromise will bring about benefits to the community.  In years gone by we might have called it statesmanship - putting the needs of the people before party politics or grandstanding opportunities.

The topic involved is, as you already know, the enlargement of Indy's smoking ban that will still fall short, but not far short, of a complete ban.  However, it will be as close as all sides can get if they hope to garner enough votes for passage and to win the Mayor's signature.

Mansfield and Hunter have been working together, across the political aisle, for years now, trying to move the smoking ban forward.  They were ready to reintroduce a previously defeated measure once the Democrats took control of the Council in January, but a measure unlikely to be signed by the Mayor.  Vaughn threw a Hail Mary pass in the last minutes of Republican control; likely to give Mayor Ballard something he could stomach and sign, saving him face.  Nonetheless, they all came together and are now lending their support to an slightly more aggressive Vaughn measure.

So, include the coming together to work for the benefit of the public, to the art of compromise when compromise will bring benefits to the community, as the reasons why the very first Fundy goes to Mansfield, Hunter, Vaughn, and Ballard.

Seeds of Hope

Jon Murray, Indy Star reporter, has another good article in today's paper about the drama over competing expansions of Indy's smoking ban.  See "Smoking ban gets unlikely support" for the entire piece.

What could have shaped up as a lose-lose head butting contest, may instead hold the seeds of hope for working government in Indianapolis.

As noted two days ago, there are two competing proposals - one to be introduced by Council President Ryan Vaughn at the next Council meeting, and one to be introduced by Councillors Angela Mansfield and Ben Hunter in January, after the Democrats gain control of the Council.  Both would bring significant enhancement to the current smoking ban, extending the ban to all bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and other public gathering places.  Vaughn's proposal would continue to exempt private organizations, tobacco shops and tobacco bars.  The Mansfield / Hunter proposal would exempt only tobacco shops.

As Murray writes:

Anti-smoking advocacy group Smoke Free Indy, which backs only the comprehensive plan [Mansfield / Hunter] so far, estimates 370 bars and other establishments still allow smoking. Most likely would be covered under an expanded ban.

By the group's count, Vaughn's proposal would exclude about 60 from the smoking ban: nearly 20 cigar and hookah bars, five retail tobacco shops, and 35 nonprofit private organizations, including country clubs, social clubs, fraternal organizations and veterans halls.

Only the retail tobacco shops would be exempted by the proposal outlined by council members Angela Mansfield, a Democrat, and Ben Hunter, a Republican.

The rub is, Vaughn can get his ordinance signed by Mayor Ballard, but may not get enough Democrat votes to get out of the Council and on to Ballard's desk.  The Mansfield / Hunter proposal could be passed by the Council, but is not likely to be signed by Ballard - and they likely don't have the votes to overturn a veto.

So, the upshot of it all could very well be that nothing gets done by those who agree on an extension of the ban to cover about 310 of the approximately 370 locations that currently allow smoking.

However, Murray's article contains the seeds of hope, not only for a more comprehensive smoking ban in Indianapolis, but also as a harbinger of working government for the next 4 years.

Mansfield expressed hope that Ballard would sit down with her and Hunter "to see exactly where he is on the issue." Marc Lotter, Ballard's spokesman, said such a meeting shouldn't be a problem in coming weeks, as long as Vaughn also is at the table.
****
"We're both open to compromise," Hunter said. "We'll look at (Vaughn's) language when we get it in the next 24 to 48 hours."
****
Mansfield, Hunter and Vaughn all say they want to rid bars of smoking before Super Bowl activities begin in late January, but Mansfield amended that goal Thursday: "I'd much rather see a good, comprehensive proposal in place, even if it's after the Super Bowl."

Vaughn said earlier this week that timing was the reason for his surprise push. He sees a requirement for a period of published notice as a stumbling block before the Super Bowl. Mansfield disagrees that it would be.

But Vaughn said supporters of a more comprehensive ban should support his proposal as an "interim step."

[edited to correct mistake in original Star posting]

How To Argue About Something You Agree On

The morning paper (and last night's Ogden on Politics) has a story about Council President Ryan Vaughn's intention to offer enhancements to the current smoking ban in Indianapolis.   (see "Bars could be smoke-free soon" by Star reporters Jon Murray and Shari Rudavsky, and Paul Ogden's "Indianapolis' Mayor Ballard, (Some) Council Republicans To Throw Bar Owners Under the Bus In Expanded Smoking Ban")

Instead of ushering in a spirit of cordiality and bipartisanship, which one could have hoped would be the tone for next year's split party governance, it appears to be the first volley in party warfare.  Hopefully I am way off the mark and cooler heads will prevail.

At its core is the intention of many to have a full or nearly full ban on smoking in Indianapolis - tightening up the law passed in 2005.

The Democrats have more Councillors, both on and soon to join the Council, in favor of a stricter ban than do the Republicans.  According to Councillor Angela Mansfield, she would have a veto proof 18 votes in favor of a ban come January.  Mansfield is working again with Republican Ben Hunter to craft a stricter ban than they were able to get passed previously.

Neither the Mansfield/ Hunter plan nor the Vaughn plan are available for public review.   I am not sure that Mansfield's proposal would be a 100% ban, either, but, according to the Star, Vaughn's proposal would :

In addition to bars and bowling alleys, Vaughn says, his proposal would ban smoking in hotel rooms as well as restaurants that slipped through the current law by allowing only patrons who are 18 or older.


His proposal would exempt cigar and hookah bars -- newly defined as "tobacco specialty bars" based on sales -- as well as retail tobacco stores and nonprofit fraternal organizations, including veterans' halls.

Vaughn says his plan has the virtue of the backing of Mayor Ballard, and an earlier passage date which would be in keeping with state law notification time requirements on enacting laws that impose penalties.  Mansfield sites her 18 votes and says the penalties were contained in the 2005 ordinance and are therefore not subject to another time limit.

I understand the all or nothing approach of Smoke Free Indy, but this is the Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council.  Passage of the weaker Vaughn proposal may wipe out some of the 18 votes Mansfield would need to veto proof additional expansion of the smoking ban in January, and if that happened, Vaughn's weaker proposal would stand for some time to come.  But, if Vaughn's approach is satisfactory to some of Mansfield's 18 votes, then how solid is her support in reality?

One aim is to have a ban in place by the Super Bowl, in order to leave a more progressive impression with visitors.  Even if Mansfield's interpretation is ultimately correct, an appeal to the Courts could delay any proposal passed in January while the Court considers the validity of the challenge.  A long term outlook for the health of bar workers would continue to be satisfied, but the opportunity some see in marketing Indy could be lost.

At some point, the new Council and the Mayor will either have to learn to talk and consider compromises that move our City forward, or we will have 4 years of gridlock.

[edited to add: My mistake, 18 votes is not veto-proof.  According to the Indianapolis Code, a 2/3 majority is needed to override a veto.  That calculates to 19.33 votes required - so I assume 20 are in reality required to override.  This makes discussion by the Council and Mayor even more imperative.  On a smoking ban, even if Mansfield can get all 16 Ds and Ben Hunter, Ryan Vaughn, and Mike McQuillen to vote for her proposal, it would not be enough votes to overturn a Ballard veto.]

Sheriff's Budget Discussion - A Fine Example Of Open Government

I continue to slog through all of the budget numbers, and along with that, I have limited time to post on the blog.  Time constraints aside, I did not want my comment on the best budget hearing I've attended so far to go unmade.  So, here it is.

Last week I attended the public safety committee hearing on the Sheriff's budget.  There was a very good exchange of ideas and concerns aired, primarily between Sheriff John Layton, committee Chairman Ben Hunter, and Council President Ryan Vaughn - although others contributed as well.

Now there is no way I am privy to what gets discussed and wheeled and dealed behind closed doors.  This, though, was some of that but out in full public view - and it was reassuring as to the caliber of discussions that should be taking place as this difficult budget moves forward.

Sheriff Layton expressed his concerns that his department is falling further and further behind with, as he put it, unfunded mandates.  His tally was about $21 m to catch up; a number that included $1.5 m to fully fund the required pension payment.

Councillor Vaughn promised that the pension payment funding would get included into the budget before final passage by the Council.

The remaining exchanges involved ideas on how to trim back the deficit for the Sheriff and where additional funds might be found.  I should point out that all were not in agreement on the actual figure assigned to the Sheriff's deficit.  But, the discussion was civil, respectful, thoughtful, and rigorous.  All sides were listening and responding not to any politics, but to what was actually said.

It was a good night.  Real problems were outlined.  Real solutions were thrown onto the table.  The people's business was conducted in the open air for all to see.  And, that business was conducted in an elevated manner befitting our community.

I'm not trying to be patronizing here, but --  good job Sheriff Layton, Councillor Hunter, and Councillor Vaughn.  It was a fine demonstration to this citizen, that the people's business can be done well and in full view of the public.

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.

Council Action - Last Week and This

This week we should have a really interesting meeting of the Rules and Public Policy committee of the City-County Council. I also want to backtrack to the full Council meeting a week ago and give you the vote on the smoking ban.

The Rules committee will meet this Wednesday evening at 5:30 pm in room 260 of the City-County Building. Two items are on the agenda. Finally coming to a hearing is Prop 303, authored by Councillor Ed Coleman. As mention in an earlier entry, this proposal would require all contracts with the City-County government be posted online within 7 days of being signed. This is a good step forward in convenient public access to information. I know I will be watching this vote very closely.

Also on this agenda is Prop 378 - the FedEx resolution - which was returned to committee at the last full Council meeting. This proposal, too, was discussed earlier. In short, the union trade rules that FedEx has been living under because of a special inclusion in the law, is now being taken from them under the current language of the "FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009". FedEx would like the Council to back its efforts to have that language removed. The nut of the issue is that FedEx employees must now unionize as a single, national union and act only if all agree. If FedEx were stripped of its special protection by the Railway Labor Act, and placed under the National Labor Relations Act like its competitor UPS is, then the employees could unionize by trade and by location, giving them more flexibility in organizing and negotiations. Whatever your view of unions, the rules for unionizing should be uniform and this resolution strays mightily in suggesting that making FedEx play by the same rules as UPS will cause layoffs here in Indy. In any case, the Rules committee has it back for renewed consideration.

The last full Council meeting did have a vote on the smoking ban. For full disclosure, I don't honestly know how I would have voted were I in the Councillors' seats. I find I fall into an internal debate between the rights of individuals to conduct a legal activity that has been the social norm for generations, the rights of individuals to find employment in smoke-free environments, and the acknowledgement that this is the path that freeing citizens from the toxins in cigarettes is and will be taking - one community at a time opting to narrow the places one can legally smoke. As a scientist I am very concerned about promoting data that any non-smoker who comes down with lung cancer must have been victim of second hand smoke and not IPL's downtown high-sulfur coal plant, or smog, or particulate release from urban mining operations. I don't want a spot on that bandwagon. But, nonetheless, smoking cigarettes will not be made illegal. Thus efforts to minimize smoking and its health risks to smokers will follow this now well worn path. For me the final question is not how Indy will reduce smoking, but when is the right time?

Enough about me. We all know, thanks to Matt Tully's column, that Mayor Ballard ducked that leadership thing once again and chose to do his best Boss Hog impersonation by appearing at the Republican caucus meeting prior to the Council meeting and let them know he did not want this ordinance to appear on his desk. No ordinance - no disclosure of a position - no harm to a reelection effort. No leadership. (I'd provide a link to Tully's column but its not available at IndyStar.com for some reason. Instead here's a link to Gary Welsh's Advance Indiana piece with an embedded link that may get reactivated some day.) Francesca Jarosz' Star piece, published 2 days prior to Tully's piece, which describes the Council's debate is still available on their website.

Here's how the Councillors voted on the smoking ban, Prop 371 : Yes (12) Republicans Hunter, Malone, Smith, and Vaughn, joined Democrats Bateman, Evans, Lewis , B. Mahern, Mansfield, Moriarty, Nytes, and Sanders. No (13) Libertarian Coleman and Democrats Brown and Oliver, joined Republicans Cain, Cardwell, Cockrum, Day, Lutz, McHenry, McQuillen, Plowman, Scales, and Speedy. Democrats D. Mahern and Gray abstained from the vote and Councillors Minton-McNeill and Pfisterer were absent all night. The vote failed.

While one cannot know how the Republicans would have voted had Mayor Ballard not instructed them not to let it get to his desk, one does have to wonder. And, one has to wonder whether any of the Councillors believe they have a duty as separately elected officials to act separately from their party and separately from the reelection efforts of the Mayor of the same party.

I do want to thank Councillors Hunter and Mansfield for authoring Prop 371 and Councillors Evans and Malone for signing on to it. A smoking ban is a discussion this community needs to have. And we will have it again because this is the path down which smoking in Indy will be curtailed. The only question is when.

Notes on the Budget Hearings - August 20

Just some stuff I thought was interesting and not a list of the important issues discussed.

Last night the budget hearing for the Department of Public Works was on the agenda. The committee was chaired by Councillor Ben Hunter. The meeting went on an hour and forty-five minutes before it was time for public comments. Three of us spoke. Before the 2nd member of the public commented, Hunter noted that he should be aware a 'few of us up here have a commitment at 8:00'. I was the third speaker. Now, I have no problem with the length of time allotted for public comments, and I was actually done with mine when Hunter abruptly thanked me and Dave Sherman, head of DPW, as a way to cut us off.

Now, silly me, I just thought they were working so hard they actually had another meeting to attend yet last night. Until, that is, I saw the traffic backed up on I-70 at the Lucas Oil Stadium exit. Guess what started at 8:00 ? That's right, the Colts game. It must have been Council appreciation night. Hope they enjoyed the free tickets and the great seats and the swell food all paid for by the overly generous taxpayers.

[edited on August 24, 2009, to add: I received a private email from Councillor Hunter who explained that, although he did attend the Colts game, his reference to a 'few of us up here have a commitment at 8:00' did not include any other Councillors attending the game, rather they had different personal commitments. He specifically named Councillors Speedy and Adams as having the personal commitments to which he was referring, and he noted that he did not know of any other Councillor from his Committee that attended the game that night. The issue of free tickets to sporting events, especially in this time of CIB bailouts, is a particularly hot one. I was too overly broad in my assumption connecting Hunter's comment and the fact that the game began at 8:00. I'll be keeping this episode in mind for some time as I review my blog entries for assumptions vs. verifiable facts.]