Lobbyist Ties To Councillor Leroy Robinson Continue Unabated

Councillor Leroy Robinson, Chairman of the Metropolitan & Economic Development committee of the City-County Council, continues his cozy relationship with lobbyists who have business before his powerful committee.

His latest campaign finance report, covering contributions from January 1 and April 10 of this year, lists contributions from lobbyists D. William Moreau, Jr. and Greg Hahn.   Hahn is, and has been for some time, a registered lobbyist for Lamar Companies and Outfront Media, both billboard companies.  Moreau was registered to lobby for Clear Channel last year, but has not registered to lobby for them this year.

Hahn is also Robinson's Campaign Treasurer.

Hahn is not doing a particularly good job at that position as far as filing a complete report is concerned.  Hahn reports, as he should, donations for the reporting period as well as the total donation by an individual for the year-to-date.  Since these time periods are one and the same, both columns should be identical.  They are not.  Hahn lists himself as having given a $250 donation on March 15 and a year-to-date total of $500.  There is no entry of another time at which Hahn gave Robinson's campaign the other $250, as there is required to be. 

Additionally, Hahn lists Moreau's $250 donation on February 15, with a year-to-date total of $700.  Again, there is not another entry showing exactly when Moreau gave that money.

And, the summary cover page does not report the year-to-date figures.

Also, there is no mention of any donor's occupation, whereby the public might have a shot at putting two and two together.

You might be interested in the fact that on April 21, after the campaign finance reporting period ended, Robinson had a fundraiser, co-sponsored in part by not one, not two, not three, but four lobbyists with business before his committee --  Greg Hahn, Ahmed Young, Carl Drummer and Lacy Johnson.  Of course, the public will not be able to find out how much these 'interested citizens' helped Robinson's campaign raise that night, until after the Primary Election on May 5.

Robinson has tried to do some good things while in office, of that I have no doubt.  But, he is damaging, if not destroying, his reputation and the public confidence in him by continuing to have lobbyists front and center of his campaign.  The fact that they have business before his committee is cause for immense concern.

New Property Taxes to Pay for Criminal Justice Center????

At last night's Public Safety & Criminal Justice Committee meeting, Council CFO, Bart Brown, presented part of the analysis the Council commissioned to analyze the Ballard Administration's estimates of the cost for their proposed Criminal Justice Center.

The completed report, "Marion County Justice Center Fiscal Feasibility Analysis", which also compares the cost to the taxpayer for the City to build and operate such a facility without the elaborate public-private partnership Ballard favors, can be found on the Council's website.  I have read it once, and have a number of questions to follow up with before I say anything here about it.

Brown's presentation last night, however, was more tailored to where the Administration says there are present funds that can be turned to pay for the construction and operation contract it hopes to ink down with WMB Heartland Justice Partners and how reliable the Fiscal Feasibility Analysis finds each of these sources to be. 

Below is the clip from WCTY's broadcast of Brown's presentation, along with a very pertinent follow-up question from Councillor Leroy Robinson, where Brown suggests new property taxes just might have to be raised should the Council approve the CJC plans now on the table.

Brown's last PowerPoint slide kind of says it all:
"There exist[s] a high probability that the next Mayor & Council must raise revenue to meet an obligation to WMB"

Councillor Leroy Robinson Signs Billboard Lobbyist as Campaign Treasurer

Brian Eason's expose` on the flood of campaign contributions to key Councillors coming from billboard industry lobbyists, leaves an open question of who is influenced by those dollars.  The billboarders are pushing for digital billboards through Prop 250, which they and their lobbyists wrote.

Chairman of the Council's Metropolitan & Economic Development committee, Leroy Robinson, to whose committee Prop 250 is assigned, got nearly a third of all money from these guys in 2014 - or $4000 in cash and in-kind donations out of $12,037 in total Council campaign donations.

Wait, it gets worse.

The billboard lobbyists even threw him a fundraiser.

Wait, it gets worse. 

Robinson's campaign finance report for 2014 shows that the fundraiser was held the day AFTER Robinson released the agenda for the November 17 MEDC meeting.  This was the first time Prop 250 was placed on an agenda of the committee, even though it was introduced back in August.  The delay violated Council rules, but, hey, they violate their own rules on a regular basis.

So, he held off placing Prop 250 on the committee agenda for more than 3 months.  It's hard to believe that the timing of the fundraiser and the movement of Prop 250 onto an agenda are mere coincidence; not probable, but still possible.

Wait, it gets worse.

Robinson recently reorganized his Campaign Committee and reported the changes to the Election Board on a "Statement of Organization" form file dated January 20, 2015, but hand dated January 7, 2015.  This change puts Gregory Hahn, billboard lobbyist for, and partner of, Bose, McKinney & Evans, in the position of Robinson's Campaign Treasurer.

That's right - a billboard lobbyist doing business before the Council committee that Robinson Chairs - is now the keeper of Robinson's campaign cash.  Hahn is kind of a one-man band - donating, throwing fundraisers, and now logging the checks.

Robinson's feting by the billboard lobby and his flaunting of the public interest by putting one of them in as his Campaign Treasurer, is a clear conflict of interest, and should be raising eyebrows all over Indianapolis.

Billboard Lobby Donations Create an Appearance of a Conflict of Interest

Just posted on Indiana Forefront...
***

The powerful Metropolitan & Economic Development committee of the City-County Council has postponed a decision on the billboard industry-written Prop 250.  If enacted, Prop 250 would allow digital billboards now, and any future technology that fits in the same frame would also be allowed – without timely public or Council review.

IndyStar reporter, Brian Eason, reports that billboard lobbyists were extremely generous with campaign contributions last year – with more than $12,000 being donated.

He also reports that a lobbyist firm held a fundraiser for committee Chair, Leroy Robinson.  Robinson, by the way, was beneficiary of nearly a third of all billboard lobby donations last year.
Another committee member, Zach Adamson got $1100.

Eason notes that Council leadership in combination, pulled down more than $5000 from billboard lobby sources.

Those who chose to talk with Eason about the contributions didn’t seem to grasp that by accepting the money, the Councillors, at a minimum, solidified an appearance of a conflict of interest. 

Suspicious minds are already correlating the donations with the fast track that Prop 250 was on and the postponement of a vote after hours of testimony against Prop 250, rather than a vote to kill it.  I have been privately assured that, had it not been delayed, the vote would have been “NO”; that the delay means little.

The public trust is a valuable commodity and important, especially in an election year.

The Councillors who took billboard lobby money can and should return it.  That would help clear up the appearance of a conflict of interest that they helped establish by accepting the money in the first place.

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. 

Ethics Committee Tables Prop 28 With Intention of More Comprehensive Proposal To Come

The Ethics Committee of the City- County Council did indeed meeting this past Thursday to consider Councillor Mahern's Prop 28, which would require full disclosure by Council members when they or their family members received gifts, including tickets to sporting events provided by the CIB.  The meeting took less than 5 minutes to complete.

Councillor Mahern requested that this proposal be struck, with the intention that he would introduce a similar proposal that would include other elected City officials, including the Mayor.  The Committee tabled Prop 28 indefinitely, which has a similar effect as striking the proposal - it is dead.

Here is the clip of Mahern's testimony before the committee (in attendance were Councillors Robinson, Hickman, Simpson, Evans, and Shreve - so this committee continues to be in flux).

"Ethics" Committee Meets Tonight - One Agenda Item - Disclosure of Free Tickets to Sporting Events

Two Council committees will meet tonight, both beginning at 5:30 pm.  Public Works will get the big room and the live WCTY feed.  So, we'll have to wait for tomorrow's posting online and subsequent airings to see what the "Ethics" Committee does with Prop 28, which "amends the Code concerning ethics disclosure to ensure more transparency with respect to gifts provided to Councillors and their families".

This proposal was heard by the committee on Valentine's Day and can be viewed in the WCTY archives.  Only 4 of the 6 members showed up to discuss more disclosure to the public.  This is the minimum needed for a quorum.  There was much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth, but no vote on the proposal.  The list online shows the committee to be chaired by Councillor Robinson, with other members being Simpson, Miller, Shreve (took over for Freeman who is still listed) - the 4 present.  Missing were Brown and Cain.

Councillor Simpson ended the meeting saying to the proposal's author, Councillor Mahern, "Let's really work on this", and "Good work, Brian".  The proposal was continued to the next meeting of the committee, which was to be March 14.

The is notice of a March 14, 2013, meeting of this committee, but no minutes or WCTY video are posted.  Prop 28 was the sole item on that agenda, as well.  An email exchange with SaRita Puckett, Ethics committee secretary, clarified that there was, in fact, no meeting held that date.

This proposal is pretty darned simple - on top of existing reporting requirements for gifts, it would also require that Councillors disclose receipt of gifts from Municipal Corporations (like the CIB).  It would require that dollar amounts be estimated for the value of gifts received.  And, it would require that gifts made to Councillors' spouses and dependant children be disclosed.  Not all gifts require disclosure in the current or proposed Code on ethics - only those valued at more than $100 for one gift, or an aggregate value of more than $250 in a calendar year.  So, a cup of coffee shouldn't tip anyone's scale.

But tickets to sporting events would definitely tip the scales.

Tonight we shall see if this Council would rather be open and above board in disclosing what tickets to what sporting events they and their family are treated to, or if they'd rather keep the public in the dark and guessing.  This committee will not bring forward a proposal that would embarrass the full Council by forcing a vote to strengthen the public's right to know, when that vote would be a very public and very accountable 'no'.  We shall see if Councillor Simpson and the rest of the "Ethics" committee really want to make this proposal the best it can be - or if they want to bury it.

Councillor Scales Reacts to New Funding Mechanism for Avondale-Meadows

Councillor Christine Scales, co-sponsor of the proposed expansion of the Fall Creek TIF she had hoped would be used for the benefit of Avondale-Meadows residents, reacted on Facebook to the news the Councillors Talley and Robinson would introduce a proposal with an alternate funding mechanism.  Scales is a Republican, while Talley and Robinson are Democrats.  Here is her post:

News to Me: Talley&Robinson coming to aid of Avondale Meadows It would have been helpful for any of the committee members who voted against the Avondale Meadows TIF to have shared their concerns with me before the MDEC meeting, when it was voted to be tabled. The co-sponsor, Councillor Steve Talley never shared any misgivings with me. It was obvious through Talley's prepared statement, and the ready agreement by others who opposed the TIF, that they never intended to consider testimony given during the meeting. The decision to oppose was made prior to the meeting's start. Now,Talley and Robinson are sponsoring a new proposal in my district without any discussion first with me, the councillor, representing the Avondale Meadows District. I have to mention that the TIF was needed not just for a grocery store but to advance further revitalization in the area. I don't need to be psychic to know that whatever these two D's propose will pass. There will be no record of them ever having voted against the TIF, as the proposal will die due to tabling. The D's will get credit for "helping" the neighborhood and no Republican will receive any credit for years of committed work in the Avondale Meadows area-which was the D's motive for not supporting the Avondale Meadows TIF all along."

Different Funding Mechanism To Be Proposed for Avondale-Meadows Area

Councillors Steve Talley and Leroy Robinson will introduce a proposal to the Council on January 28, that will include alternate funding to substitute for the failed Avondale-Meadows TIF proposal. 

The Metropolitan & Economic Development committee tabled indefinitely (AKA - killed) Prop 349 Monday night.  Prop 349 was passionately presented and championed by Councillor Christine Scales (see "Case for Meadows TIF")  That proposal included an expansion of the Fall Creek TIF to assist the Avondale-Meadows area in attracting a grocery store.  The TIF would exist for 25 years, even though the grocery store project bonds likely would have a term of only 10 years.  Deputy Mayor for Economic Development/Director of the Bond Bank Deron Kintner, doing financial calculations on the fly, estimated that the $3 million bond would take $10 million to pay off in 10 years.  Why a bond would have to have these terms is totally beyond reason - but that's what Kintner said.

Talley and Robinson, who voted against the proposed TIF, will introduce a proposal with alternate funding to meet the goals of the Avondale-Meadows area residents to attract a grocery store - which is absolutely critical for the residents to have available healthy, normally priced food.  They are now subject to the absurdly high prices and paucity of fresh food from convenience stores and the like.

I look forward to reviewing the new proposal once it is introduced.  And, I am glad that something is being done to provide the good folks of the Avondale-Meadows area with critical tools to lift up their quality of life.

Prop 15 - A Nightmarish Mess

The tortuous life of Prop 15 through the Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council is not the Council's finest hour by any stretch of the imagination.

The ridiculoucity continued this past week with two evenings of meetings of the Metropolitan & Economic Development committee.

Even before Monday night's meeting began, the committee knew it would be recessing that night without passing Prop 15 due to a disagreement with the Ballard administration over a proposed amendment that sought to add language guaranteeing two microloan programs and one job training program.  Councillor Vop Osili had a memo from Deron Kintner to the effect that the City agreed to those programs, but wanted it written into the proposal.  I uploaded to Google Docs the disputed, and never introduced, amendment.  What you'll notice is it's clarity of language.  The header suggests this amendment was intended to be voted on at the full Council meeting where, instead, the Council decided to send Prop 15 back to committee.

What was introduced Friday night, after they had four full days and nights to come to an agreement, was a mess - tortuous language construction, dubious protections for the intended beneficiaries of the programs, and massive loopholes.  Not to mention the misspelling of the word "Councillor" - which is defined in Council rules, by the way.  Plus you'd think commas were an endangered species that had to be included sparingly.  This amendment passed by a vote of 6 to 1, with Councillor Zach Adamson providing the sole no vote.  I have uploaded my copy of this amendment, as the Council website has not yet updated their version of Prop 15.  Sorry for the scribbling, I wasn't thinking I'd be sharing it with everyone.

From the header one might think this amendment would be introduced at the full Council.  The meeting Friday night did start 5 minutes late and the amendment was not available until seconds beforehand.  So, it may be the negotiations were deemed done enough and this messy amendment was introduced at the committee instead.

Here are some attributes of the amendment that catch my eye:

The $10 million microloan program will require "the leveraging of current resources" which usually means floating bonds to be repaid with some revenue stream.  There aren't many details provided on this proposed program.  One thing that is stated is that it would be a county wide program.  It would be a violation of state law for the funds to come from the downtown TIF.

I looked through google street maps and the Marion County Assessor's interactive map to try to locate the "Bryant Heating & Cooling Facility located at 21st and Montcalm".  All parcels at that intersection are owned by private entities, none of which are Bryant.  To the west, however, at 1100 W. 21st Street, there is a large parcel with large buildings that appear abandoned, which is owned by DMD.  Why the lack of specificity when an address or parcel number is three mouse clicks away?  This is important because there is an attempt to require the demolition of this facility.

In multiple places the phrase "the area" is used.  From context it seems like it refers to possibly different boundaries at times - but the phrase is never clearly defined, which results in little to no protection of the residents of the Bush Stadium area that any of the promises made to them will actually be fulfilled - or even be required to be fulfilled.

The $2 million microloan program can be awarded to any business within a two mile radius of the enlarged downtown consolidated TIF.  The language is poor, again a comma or two might clarify, but it is either attempting to say the business must be located in a lower income area (median household income 75% or less of the median income in the County) or that the 2 mile perimeter must be centered on a low income area.  Just by the way, the median household income in the County is $40,421.  But a two mile radius?  How does that adequately target the Riverside or UNWA residents who came out to say they needed help?  Looking at maps, this perimeter could reach the Speedway to the west, Garfield Park to the south, Butler University to the north, and nearly Emerson Avenue to the east.  The intent is to take the funds from the TIF.  But TIF revenues must be spent within the TIF.  These requirements are a clear attempt to circumvent the state laws regarding the expenditure of TIF revenues, and it does not target the folks who live in the Bush Stadium area.

The exact same thing can be said of the $1.5 million job training program as was just stated for the $2 million microloan program.

And the last I'll mention is the really botched attempt to get work for the TIF district residents.  The language seems to say that any business receiving TIF money, should they require new hiring, would have to ensure that 40% of those hired lived in the TIF district.  The business could get out of this by filling out a form that indicated why it tried but failed to get to the 40% figure.  Or, they could bring in all their additional help from out of state, since those folks will not be counted.

Osili has been all over town touting the targeted benefits he personally negotiated for the residents and businesses of the Bush Stadium expansion area.  But, he is not delivering on that promise with this language.  Someone is being scammed - its either Osili or the residents.

Prop 15, that twice beaten dead horse now burdened with the worst amendment in the history of amendments, was voted on twice by the committee Friday night.  The first time the phrasing of the motion left off the key part where it would be sent back to the full Council with a do-pass recommendation.  On the advice of Council counsel, they did a do-over with the correct motion.

Both times the vote was 6 yeas and 1 nay.  Councillor Zach Adamson was the lone no vote both times.  The yeas were Councillors Robinson, Talley, Adams, Osili, Miller and Cardwell.  The last two are Republicans and the rest are Democrats. 

Prop 15, that raggedy, tattered zombie that it is, returns to the full Council Monday night.

Council Sends Prop 15 Back to Committee

Before the meeting officially began this evening, City-County Council President Maggie Lewis approached the microphone and announced that the Council would be sending Prop 15 back to committee.  She framed it as in the best interest of fairness.

Whew !  Given the politics of the situation, this was the best we could hope for tonight.

The new Chair of the Metropolitan & Economic Development committee, Leroy Robinson, will gavel his first committee meeting to order next Monday, September 24, at 5:30 pm.

Council Committee Followed Improper Procedure In Pushing TIF Expansion Out the Door

Recently fellow blogger Fred McCarthy, over at Indy Tax Dollars, made a startling discovery regarding the outrageous meeting conducted by members of the Council's Metropolitan & Economic Development committee back on August 27.  McCarthy noted that the committee failed to properly vote on amending Prop 15 before voting to move it to the full Council with a 'do-pass' recommendation (see "Haste Makes Waste").

I just watched the ad hoc extension of the committee meeting and followed closely what motions were made and voted on.  (See "WCTY Archive For Metro Devel Committee" to view this section of the meeting for yourself.)

McCarthy is right.

It is surprising, given Councillor Adams lengthy tenure on the Council, that she would goof this up, but she did.

Here are the series of motions and votes.

0:26 -- Chairman Talley adjourns the meeting.

1:56 -- Councillor Osili moves to take Prop 15 off the table.  Adams seconds.  Cain 'thirds'.

Talley does not recognize Osili's motion.

4:40 -- Adams takes control of the meeting by consent.

5:00 -- Osili again moves to take Prop 15 off the table.

5:48 --  Osili reads full text of Prop 15 with amended parts.

No motion to amend is made.  No second to amend is made.

11:59 -- Councillor Robinson moves for recess.  Adams does 'not entertain at this time'.

12:30 -- Adams say incorrectly that the proposal as amended has been moved and seconded.

13:00 -- vote is taken to move Proposal 15 off the table.

Adams follows vote to take off the table with erroneous statement that the matter is "before us as amended".

19:20 -- Adams says they "need to take a vote on the amendment"

no vote is taken

20:05 -- Adams says, erroneously, that they have amended version of Prop 15 before them.

20:20 -- Adams says she will take a vote on Proposal 15 "as amended" - voice vote, not sure if Robinson in the room.

20:38 -- Councillor Adamson explains his vote, Osili thanks him for his assistance.  It should be noted that if Adamson had not remained in the meeting, and left with Talley and Robinson (who came and went during the ad hoc portion), there would not have been a quorum of the members and no doubt that the meeting could not continue.

22:50 -- Cain makes a motion to move Prop 15 as amended to the full Council with a do pass recommendation.  Cannot hear a second on the video.  Vote proceeds again with a 5-1 outcome (Osili, Adamson, Adams, Cain and Miller yes -- Robinson no).

There is never a motion to amend Prop 15.  There is never a second to amend Prop 15.  There is never a vote to amend Prop 15.

The five yes voting members of this committee clearly do not value public notification that a hot topic will be considered by the committee and therefore real opportunity for public input.  There likely will be protests of this characterization, but when push and shove came together, they acted without public input and were fine with it.

Council rules do not require public input in this type of ordinance, unfortunately.  But, Council rules do require proper motions, seconds, and votes to amend.  If the full Council is not interested in sending Prop 15 back to committee because of lack of public notification and input, then they surely must send it back due to improper Council procedure. 

Kudos to Fred McCarthy for bringing this to light.

Slush Funds Advance Out of Public View

From WCTY archives:

 



 

There were no proposals seeking to establish TIF districts on last night's Metropolitan and Economic Development committee's agenda.  This is all we have this morning.  You can clearly see and hear Chairman Steve Talley adjourn the meeting at time stamp 1:33:40.  At the end of the WCTY tape you can hear, but not see, Councillor Virginia Cain ask Republican Council Attorney Elrod for advise.  Then audio cuts out, too.

 

Early on, before this clip begins, when members of the public are addressing the committee, you can see Deron Kintner in the last row of the room.  Trust me, I've been to more budget hearings than some Councillors, but nobody comes to one if their interests aren't being entertained.  So, Deron  Kintner, Executive Director of the Bond Bank, was given a heads up that this would happen.  The public was not informed.

 

From Jon Murray, IndyStar reporter, we have the skeleton of what happened.  He reports that Democrats Mary Adams, Zach Adamson, Vop Osili and Republicans Virginia Cain and Jeff Miller all voted in favor of the proposal, evidently after amending it.  There was one lone "no" vote by Democratic Councillor Leroy Robinson. 

 

Thank you, Councillor Robinson.

 

Murray reports on the amendment:

But the ice thawed Monday after the administration reached an agreement with Democratic council members Vop Osili and Joseph Simpson. They represent districts near those proposed new development zones.

In a newly released memo outlining the agreement, Deron Kintner, Ballard’s new deputy mayor for economic development, commits to tapping $13.5 million from city economic development funds for three loan and workforce training programs.

The committee also amended the proposal to require some local hiring by contractors on new projects and to promote minority employment.
 

The proposed expansion of the downtown TIF to the west aims to capture 604 acres to support road improvements around Bush Stadium and to the east to capture 111 acres to support redevelopment of a block no more than 3 acres in size.  Now add to it more tax dollars swapped by the two district Councillors and you clearly have huge new slush funds being set up. 

There has been no disclosure of basic information justifying or answering the questions : Why this TIF?  Why this place?  Why this project?  Why this footprint?  The three submissions in response to the RFP for the Mass Ave TIF (the 111 acre expansion to the east) are held in embargo; kept out of sight of public eyes and disclosure.

The recommendations of the TIF Study Commission would have required all of this disclosure so that the public AND the Councillors had real information upon which to base a real evaluation of the proposed TIFs.  These recommendations would have protected the public.

The Ballard administration, including Ryan Vaughn and Deron Kintner, do not want any details to escape into the public and have held as much under wraps as they could.  Now we find that Councillors are deliberately helping them keep the wraps on.  This is foul.

The full Council will have an opportunity to send this back to committee where the public can take their rightful place in the discussion.  As it stands now, this action by Adams, Adamson, Osili, Cain and Miller is a travesty that screams of their real distain for proper proceedure, public process, and putting in place recommendations that will protect the public interest.  If this is an inaccurate review of their attitudes, then they have the opportunity to clarify things by walking this proposal back to committee themselves.