Council ReIntroduces Mayors' Budget Cuts

The last meeting of the full Council for 2012 will be Monday night.  Much is on the agenda, and much is to be introduced.

Postponed from last meeting due to two Democrat absences are Props 290, 316, 362, and 372.  Prop 316, which amends Council Rules to include information that should be provided for consideration of new or expanded TIFs, is the sole proposal that cannot be vetoed by the Mayor.  Prop 290 limits fraternization between certain employees of City-County government, in wake of the revelation that former Public Safety Director, Frank Straub, has a new main squeeze.  Prop 362 simple adds an additional purpose to which RebuildIndy funds may be appropriated - for recruiting and training new police officers and firefighters.  Prop 372 is the Democrat Council district maps, which must be passed in this calendar year to fulfill State redistricting laws.  It is clear that Prop 372 will be vetoed by the Mayors, but it will be interesting to see if Vaughn wants to fight over fraternization and recruit training options.

Being introduced are three of particular interest.  Prop 447, sponsored by Council President Lewis, would restore the full $652,654 to the 2013 Council budget - including funds to pay for any legal challenge to the competing Council district maps.  On the other hand is Prop 450, sponsored by Minority Leader McQuillen, which would restore only $552,654 to that budget - excluding the funds to pay for any legal challenge to the competing Council district maps.

Prop 448 restores, in essence, the full 2013 budget for County agencies as introduced by the Mayor and as struck down by the Mayors.

Prop 449 would reinstate language in the 2013 budget passed by the Council and struck by the Mayors, that allows for the CIB PILOT money to be deposited into the rainy day fund.

Curious is Prop 458, which would amend the recent requirement that Flea Markets operate under license to exclude sales in Clean Zones of big events.  I'm not really sure why one would want to let folks in these Zones sell goods that could have sketchy provenance, but I guess we'll find out.

The changes to the 2013 cannot be implemented before the end of 2012, thus their timing.  If competing proposals on the Council budget had not been introduced, the Pollyanna in me might have suspected a compromise in the works over the Mayors' line item cuts of the Council-passed budget.  The fiscal ordinance proposals all go to the Admin & Finance committee, which next meets on Tuesday.

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.

Democrats Off to Bad Start

The first meeting of the Council of 2012 demonstrated that the Council Democrats are not willing to share power in an equitable fashion.  This is a very unfortunate portent for Indianapolis' next 4 years of divided government, and ignores that not everyone in Marion County voted for Democratic candidates.  In fact 13 Republicans were elected along with 16 Democrats.  Yet, the fraction of Republicans seated on the Rules Committee was just 2 of 8.  Even sticking with the fraction of the Council, that committee should have at least 3.  This is also the traditional split, giving a clear majority to the party who controls the Council.   Looking at it another way, 13 of the 25 Council district electorates chose Republican representation.  But, they are not getting a fair share of that actual representation on at least the Rules committee, and there appears to be squabbles about other committees as well.

More important than all of that is the message this sends to the community.  First, the Democrats want more power than allotted to them through the election process.  Second, the representation of those areas of the County that chose Republicans are being shortchanged by the new Democratic majority - and it doesn't seem to bother the Democrats at all.

Jon Murray, IndyStar reporter, described the situation this way:

"It didn't take long Monday night for friction to arise.

"During a meeting break, while a panel called the Committee on Committees convened briefly, Minority Leader Michael McQuillen accused Democrats of diluting the GOP's influence.

"He sits on that committee with Lewis and Majority Leader Vernon Brown. Their task was to select members of the key Rules and Public Policy Committee, so the rules panel could meet to decide several council staff appointments.

"Over McQuillen's objection, Lewis and Brown voted to appoint six Democrats to the eight-member rules committee, leaving two seats for Republicans. McQuillen said he was blindsided because the rules panel has long had three members from the minority party.

"Brown, however, pointed out that city-county code requires just one minority member on most committees. And he told McQuillen: "I'm not negotiating."

"When the full council reconvened, McQuillen said: "I'm very disappointed that the first action of the new majority caucus was to shut voices down."

"Lewis told reporters she was open to further conversation and chalked up the spat to "first-night jitters."

"A second meeting later Monday night among Lewis, Brown and McQuillen ended quickly, with no decisions made about other committee assignments amid similar disagreement over the division of seats."