TIF Study Commission Recommendation # 5 - Public Access To TIF Accounting

For my fifth choice of a common sense recommendation from the TIF Study Commission, I am bundling a couple of items that are meant to 'establish transparent financial practices, accounting, reporting and monitoring'.

These include creating the types of data that should be monitored for established TIF Districts, including whether goals are being met, creating a standardized database for evaluation of the performance of the TIFs, and making it easily available to the public on a City TIF website.

Remember, Indy's TIF districts :

* consume over one tenth of all the assessed value of all the real estate in Marion County

* generate roughly $100 million in property tax revenues every year

Compare that to the roughly $340 million sent to the City/County coffers from property taxes and you can see what a huge fraction has been set aside, and which the rest of us taxpayers must make up with higher taxes until we hit the protection of the tax caps.

With the gargantuan size of our collective TIF Districts, monitoring them and making the data regarding them public, should be of the highest priority.

The exact wording is (click here and scroll to page 20 of the pdf) :

2) Establish transparent financial practices, accounting, reporting and monitoring. Specifically, the MDC, in coordination with the Controller and Bond Bank, should:

a. Engage a third party review of all TIF financials and documentation to establish a uniform documentation, reporting, tracking and monitoring system and to document Marion County process and practices in a Marion County TIF Handbook; Create a uniform application that will be used to capture TIF information, preserve institutional memory and monitor project outcomes (number of jobs, for example) in comparison to agreed upon outcomes.

b. Build a TIF database for the collection of consistent information which can be used in the evaluation and analysis of TIF transactions and data.

c. Create and maintain a TIF website which would be a repository of the TIF data and information made available to the public.

I can tell you that the lion's share of the data about TIFs that I have gathered over the years has come from the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance, where some must be reported.  Our local "transparent" Ballard administration is very slow to give out information.  So, a website that must be maintained with required data would bring TIFs out of the shadows and into the sunlight.  I am always in favor of that sort of thing. 

Want to see how the money in the TIF near you was spent last year?  Look it up online.  If you don't know what they are doing, how can you voice your opinion and help change the direction, if need be?

Monitoring is important beyond the public access point.  If the City isn't watching what these huge financial vehicles are doing, we stand to get surprised.  More than two people should be able to review the performance numbers, as well.  It bears repeating that, combined, our TIFs cover about 1/10th of all taxable property in Marion County and generate about $100 million in property tax revenue each and every year.  The ongoing health of these districts affect us all - as they are backed with the moral obligation of the City and any associated debt WILL be paid, no matter whether that means services have to be cut to pay off the bonds or not.

Public Access Counselor Sides With Airport on Open Door Law Complaint

Yesterday the Indiana Public Access Counselor issued his opinion on my complaint that the Indianapolis Airport Board violated the Open Door Law in initiating a lawsuit without a meeting to take a vote and without an established policy giving the Board President the authority to unilaterally make this decision.  I spoke with Joe Hoage, the PAC, today, to try and get some clarification of the opinion.
I have uploaded the opinion to Google Docs, as I don't see it posted on the PAC website yet.

A little background on what has happened at the Airport since I filed the complaint and since they were notified by Hoage of that complaint on May 10, 2012.  (See "Airport Board Did Not Authorize Lawsuit On Fast Park Zoning" for information about the complaint itself.)

Since receiving word of the complaint, the Airport Chief Legal Office, Joseph Heerens, signed an engagement letter with Doninger Tuohy & Bailey LLP to file and litigate the lawsuit on May 11.  Then, on May 17, both Heerens and Airport Authority Executive Director, Bob Duncan, signed an amended letter of engagement setting a $70,000 limit on the professional services contract.  On May 25, the Airport Board voted unanimously to support the lawsuit.  The posted agenda for that meeting did not, however, contain mention of this vote so that interested parties could attend and make their opinions known.

The crux of the PAC opinion is that as a general rule, the law does not mandate that any Board hold a meeting in order to initiate a lawsuit.  In fact there is a chilling court decision that says that decisions can be made in executive sessions; the same executive sessions were taking a vote is illegal.  It is his opinion, as well, that there is a policy allowing the Executive Director of the IAA to enter into personal services contracts for less than $150,000 without prior Board approval and that allowed the engagement of the law firm. He also puts value on the late board vote saying:

I would note that to clear up an impropriety, or perceived impropriety; the Board conducted a vote on May 25, 2012 in an open, properly noticed public meeting where the Board unanimously ratified the initiation of the legal action.

Heerens comments omitted  the fact that the May 25 meeting agenda does not mention the issue coming before the Board for a vote.  So, that action does not really meet any standard for proper notice and does not embrace any openness with respect to the public.  And I would have to disagree strenuously with the PAC that it clears up any impropriety.  The impropriety is not that the Board would have voted unanimously before the lawsuit was filed, the impropriety is that it did not vote and thus blocked the public from having input before the decision was final. 

The fact that they gave me 5 minutes to comment AFTER the lawsuit was filed seems to mean a lot to Heerens.  It is a sad day for public input into the affairs of government when those in power don't get the idea that input is only valuable when it has a non-zero chance of affecting the outcome of a decision.
Heerens is not unique at the Airport.  We often see this detachment from any respect for the public's opinion and the true meaning of transparancy.  He just was the one who wrote it up.  Here is his take on how all this AFTER decision posing elevates the IAA Board above all reasonable expectations:

Not only did the IAA board act in a manner consistent with the above-referenced Advisory Opinion 08-FC-136, it went above and beyond by taking several additional steps in order to ensure that this matter was handled in a fully transparent manner and that the general public was informed and made aware of the litigation in question.

Just days after the Petitions were filed, President Wells took the opportunity to publicly announce and report, at an IAA public board meeting, that the IAA had filed this litigation challenging the MDC Approval.  At the conclusion of his public comments, Mr. Wells also announce that Complainant had requested, and was being granted, five (5) minutes to address the IAA board on this particular subject.  In her public comments, Complainant indicated that the Decatur Township Civic Council was opposed to the Petitions and requested that the IAA withdraw or dismiss them.  Complainant, along with several of her colleagues, also provided certain documents to the IAA board for its consideration.  No on else offered public comments or asked to be heard.

Again I must reiterate that the Airport Board is granted by State Law the right to sue and be sued.  They have not delegated that authority, through establishment of a policy, to the sitting President of the Board.  Thus, they must make that decision through a vote at an open meeting.  I am not deterred in this interpretation.  I am staggered that a Board of such importance does not have a policy establishing a mechanism for Board decisions between Board meetings.  Every non-profit on whose Board I have served has just such a mechanism. 

As for that chilling court opinion that decisions may be made in executive session, even though there may be no vote taken - the minutes of the Airport Board's executive sessions pretty much show no decision was made regarding this lawsuit in that venue either.  In November and December's Executive sessions, yes the Board did discuss allowable matters under IC 5-14-1.5-6.1 (b)(2)(B)

(2) For discussion of strategy with respect to any of the following:
...
(B) Initiation of litigation or litigation that is either pending or has been threatened specifically in writing

In the January 20 and February 17 meetings, no such discussion was noted in the minutes.  The MDC hearing was held on February 15.  The March 23 meeting, after the filing of the lawsuit, again notes IC 5-14-1.5-6.1 (b)(2)(B) - discussion of strategy regarding litigation.  So, no discussion of lawsuits took place in the time frame most interesting for this lawsuit.  Heerens, in his comments, carefully avoids saying that they did.  He gets very general on this saying only:

While the IAA has not historically secured the vote of its board before initiating litigation, IAA board members have regular opportunities to be advised on, and to discuss, recommended proceedings, threatened and pending litigation, and the strategy about on in connection therewith.  These discussions occur frequently in executive sessions throughout the year, as permitted by the ODL.  See, Indiana Code 5-14-1.5-6.1(b)(2)(B).  For example, at this time there are nine (9) pending lawsuits involving IAA, and these matters are discussed, from time to time, in executive session.

In our conversation, the PAC noted that it is not in his purview to opine on whether the Airport Authority Board was required to hold a meeting to decide if this lawsuit should be filed.  Given that big caveat, I cannot fault him from arriving at the position he did.  But, that is the crux of my argument that the Board violated the open door law - because they have the sole authority to sue and they did not delegate it to any Board President, nor did they make such a decision in an executive session without taking a vote.  The very fact that AFTER the airport was apprised of my complaint they even saw the first draft of a letter of agreement with the outside lawfirm handling the lawsuit, and a week later got a version signed by the Executive Director, and the very fact that AFTER the airport was apprised of my complaint they took a vote in a public meeting - all speaks to the fact that they did not do things right the first time and were bailing themselves out as best they could.  And, it looks like it worked.

Jeff Baer Without a Contract Since 2006 - Really?

A concerned citizen contacted me regarding trouble they were having getting contract information from the MSD Decatur Township. They had asked for a number of administrator contracts, only to receive incomplete information and what was supplied had areas whited out. These same areas of the contract were not whited out when the district supplied Superintendent Stinson's contract to the Star. I guess I'd have to ask, why were these whited out areas of the contract deemed public record when the Star asked for the information and denied as public record when a mere citizen made the request?

This person sent me the information they did get and has requested that the State Public Access Counselor rule on the remaining information.

In this entry I'd like to focus on the aspect that surprised me the most about the information the District did give this citizen. The request had been for the current contract for various individuals, including Assistant Superintendent Jeff Baer. All documents turned over, except for Baer's, were indeed current and for the 2009-2010 school year.

The document supplied for Jeffrey S. Baer was a two year contract from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2006. Really? That's the most recent contract? Really?

Are we to believe that Assistant Superintendent Jeff Baer has been working without a contract for nearly 4 years now? How then, do you explain that the limited information provided by the district even with the old contract showing a base salary of $122,269.09. Documents submitted by the District to the State Board of Accounts provide data for Baer's 2008-2009 salary to be $136,027 (see "Top Decatur School District Salaries for 2008-2009 School Year") followed by a raise to $140,469 this school year (see "Most Administrators Saw Increase in Salary and/or Benefits")? How do you get a raise without a contract?

The document supplied by the District is the "Regular Teacher's Contract" page, but no addendum that adds benefits available to only Administrators. (see the Star copy of Superintendent Don Stinson's contract to see what I mean). Those benefits would include pension payment details, health insurance details, any annuities that are over and above the base salary, and the like. Even with this old contract, the public has the right to know the employment package deal that they are paying for with each and every Administrator, including Jeff Baer.

But, like other pieces of important information about how the MSD Decatur Township operates, it is hard to decide quite what to believe. Is Jeff Baer really receiving pay raises even though he has had no contract with the District for almost 4 years? Or, is the District trying to keep the real contract under wraps? And, why don't they disclose the entire contract - old or not?

ICOG Offers Citizen Journalism Boot Camp

Want to start your own blog? Already have a blog, but want to know what laws impact it? Want to learn how to get hold of public records? Or, are you interested in learning some of the tricks of the trade of being a journalist? On Saturday, March 20, the Indiana Coalition for Open Government is offering a one day Citizen Journalism Boot Camp for folks just like you. Click here to register.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am proud to have been invited to participate on the blog panel, and humbled by the calibre of folks who will be presenting at this event. I am not being paid to participate, although I can attend the whole day's events without paying the fee.

ICOG are the good folks who fight for improved laws for public access to both records and meetings, and for public input into the decisions made by the government. In the side panel of this blog, I keep a link to thier website under "Agents of Change". I also keep a link to their 'make your own' open records request letter.

The Boot Camp is being held on the IUPUI campus and does cost $35 ($20 if you are either a student or an ICOG member), but you get lunch and a one year membership in ICOG along with being able to attend the workshops all day.

Here's how they describe the events of the day:

If you are a neighborhood leader, citizen activist, blogger or would-be blogger, ICOG's Citizen Journalism Boot Camp can help you become a stronger citizen journalist or learn the essentials on how to become one.

The event, which highlights ICOG’s participation in national Sunshine Week, will feature workshops on how to gain access to public information and gather other information as a reporter, understanding the technology you will need to use, and how to set up a blog and keep your readers informed effectively. Session leaders will include veteran bloggers, attorneys and journalists who will walk you through the nuts and bolts of setting yourself up to become your own community watchdog.

Registration fee is $35 for the general public and $20 for students and ICOG members. The fee includes morning coffee, lunch and a complimentary one-year membership to ICOG, a $25 value itself.

Keynote speaker during the lunch will be Jan Schaffer, executive director of J Lab: The Institute for Interactive Journalism, one of the nation’s leading thinkers in the journalism reform movement. J-Lab administers the Knight Citizen News Network (http://www.kcnn/.org) and other initiatives.

Speakers will include members of The Indianapolis Star’s Starwatch investigative team, who will demonstrate how to generate story ideas, develop sources and collect documents and data that reporters can use to quickly produce news relevant to their communities.

Brant Houston will lead discussion on basic research and backgrounding, giving special attention to using online sources for information. Houston is the former executive director of Investigative Reporters and Editors. He now holds the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Chair in Investigative and Enterprise Reporting and teaches investigative and advanced reporting in the Department of Journalism at the University of Illinois College of Media.

John Strauss, a former Indianapolis Star reporter and columnist who is now on the journalism faculty at Ball State University, will demonstrate easy-to-use multimedia tools that can turn anyone into a backpack journalist.

Local blogging expert Erik Deckers will show you how to start a blog in just minutes using readily available online tools. He will be joined by two bloggers who will offer advice on how to get material for your blog and keep the information flowing.

Also, a panel of lawyers will talk about challenges and pitfalls of blogging, strategies for staying on the right side of the law, and the current state of affairs regarding access issues.

Here is the complete schedule for the day:

The Citizen Journalism Boot Camp program has a full day of workshops to help you improve as a citizen journalist or to get started as one.

8:30-9 a.m. – Registration and coffee.
9-10 a.m. – Members of The Indianapolis Star’s Starwatch investigative team share tips of the reporter’s trade in a roundtable discussion. Participants: Mark Alesia, Tim Evans, Heather Gillers, Alvie Lindsay.
10-10:45 a.m. – Brant Houston, former executive director of Investigative Reporters and Editors (now holder of the Knight Chair in Investigative Reporting at the University of Illinois), presents a session on information gathering, with discussion on basic research and background and special attention to online sources.
10:45-11 a.m. – Break.
11 a.m.-Noon – John Strauss, former Indianapolis Star journalist and member of Ball State University’s journalism faculty, demonstrates easy-to-use multimedia tools that can turn any citizen activist into a backpack journalist.
Noon-1:30 p.m. – Lunch. Jan Schaffer of the Knight Citizen News Network gives the keynote speech.
1:30-2:30 p.m. – Erik Deckers, vice president of creative services and operations for Pro Blog Service, presents the nuts and bolts of starting a blog.
2:30-3:15 p.m. – Erik is joined by Pat Andrews, neighborhood activist and blogger, and Bil Browning, co-owner of Bilerico Media, for a discussion of their experiences blogging – how to maintain a blog and not get burned out. Audience Q&A.
3:15-3:30 p.m. – Break.
3:30-4:45 p.m. – The Citizen Journalist and the Law. Panel includes Steve Badger of Bose McKinney & Evans, Jan Carroll of Barnes & Thornburg and Dick Goehler of Frost Brown Todd. They will talk about challenges and pitfalls for citizen bloggers, strategies for staying on the right side of the law, and the current state of affairs regarding access issues.

To register for the Boot Camp, click here.

Technology is changing the world for sure. Blogging might be a flash in the pan, or a way to express yourself. It can be anything you want - a Julie & Julia blog, a politics blog, a blog about cars, or a blog just about frogs if that is what interests you. If you think you might want to try your hand at a blog, this Boot Camp could be just what you needed.

More Violations of State Law by Decatur School Board and Adminstration

I have reviewed all minutes of the MSD Decatur Township School Board that are posted on the District website. These include all of the minutes from regularly scheduled Board meetings for the years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. No minutes for special sessions or work sessions are posted, although they are shown approved in the minutes of the regular meetings.

It is very disturbing that at no time from January, 2006, through December, 2009, is there any mention of any contract nor is there any record of any contract being submitted to the Board for a vote.

State law (IC 20-26-4-8) (addition of bold font is my addition)

Approval of contracts Sec. 8. Notwithstanding any other law, the president and secretary of the governing body of a school corporation are entitled, on behalf of the school corporation, to sign any contract, including employment contracts and contracts for goods and services. However, each contract must be approved by a majority of all members of the governing body. In the absence of either the president or secretary of the governing body, the vice president is entitled to sign the contracts with the officer who is present.

Indeed, at no point in these years of minutes, was there either mention of the public opening of competitive bids by the Board, or a designation of a committee to take on that responsibility on behalf of the Board.

State law (IC 20-26-4-6) (addition of bold font is my addition)

IC 20-26-4-6Bids for purchase of supplies or equipment Sec. 6.
(a) The governing body of any school corporation may designate a committee of at least two (2) of the governing body's members, or a committee of not less than two (2) employees of the school corporation, to open and tabulate bids:
(1) in connection with the purchase of supplies, material, or equipment;
(2) for the construction or alteration of a building or facility; or
(3) for any similar purpose.
(b) Bids described in subsection (a):
(1) may be opened by the committee at the time and place fixed by the advertisement for bids;
(2) must be read aloud and tabulated publicly, to the extent required by law for governing bodies;
and
(3) must be available for inspection.
(c) The bids described in subsection (a) must be reported to and the tabulation entered upon the records of the governing body at the governing body's next meeting following the bid opening.
(d) A bid described in subsection (a) may not be accepted or rejected by the committee, but the bid must be accepted or rejected solely by the governing body in a board meeting open to the public as provided in section 3 of this chapter.

The Board is either being deliberately kept in the dark by its Administration or it is willfully avoiding disclosure of fiscal matters to the public in its meetings. Either way, these violations of State law should cease at once so that the public can have the access to this information - a protection created by the laws.

An additional State law was violated just last Thursday evening. On January 28, 2010, the MSD Decatur Township School Board held an executive session followed by a special meeting which was followed by a work session. I am still looking into how legally adequate the notice of these three meetings was. But, one thing is clear - the location of these meetings in the Southwest Pavilion Office Building instead of the School Board room is a violation of State law.

State law states (IC 20-26-4-3) (addition of bold font is my addition)

(c) Special meetings of a governing body must be held on call by the governing body's president or by the superintendent of the school corporation. The call must be evidenced by a written notice specifying the date, time, and place of the meeting, delivered to each member personally or sent by mail or telegram so that each member has at least seventy-two (72) hours notice of the special meeting. Special meetings must be held at the regular meeting place of the board.

The regular meeting place is the Board Room in the Central Office. That meeting was held in violation of at least this State law.

The attitude of this School Board and this School District Administration is to do whatever they please. Regardless even of State laws that are easily located.

City-County Council Meets Tonight

The Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council meets tonight and takes up a couple of interesting Proposals.

According to today's Star article by Francesca Jarosz, the current thought is to send the smoking ban back to committee to buy more time to get the votes needed for passage. This is a very difficult Proposal (#371) to get passed given, especially, the role that Mayor Ballard has chosen to play in the debate - a closed door pronouncement against the Proposal meant to shield him from actually having to take a public stand. So much for leadership. I have heard a book on the subject touted by some business people. Perhaps someone should give it to the Mayor as a holiday gift?

But, other interesting Proposals are also on tonight's agenda - which can be found on the Council website. Prop 303, introduced a couple of months back by Councillor Ed Coleman, which would require the internet posting of all contracts with the City or County government, passed out of the Rules Committee this month with a 8-0 'do pass' recommendation. (It should be noted that no Municipal Corporation would be required to do the same through this Proposal; presumably because the Council does not have legal power to require it.) Testimony at the committee was that it will cost $34,000 for 2010 for initial implementation and posting of the backlog of contracts and $7,000 each year thereafter. In the plus column for this one, the Ballard administration is on board with the Proposal. Chris Cotterill, Corporate Counsel and soon to be Chief of Staff to Mayor Ballard, testified that, although the language of the Proposal does not strictly require it, they intend to post all contracts that are still active, even if the contract was signed prior to January 1, 2008. Councillors on the Committee include Republicans Lutz, Cockrum, Malone, Pfisterer, and Plowman, and, Democrats Sanders, Grey, and Mansfield.

Also passing out of that committee the same night with 'do pass' recommendations was Prop 256, introduced by Councillor Sanders, Plowman, and both Maherns, which is a Special Resolution that "calls upon the hospitality industry to reduce the negative impact of outsourcing jobs on the community". This proposal was first introduced back when the hospitality industry was hiding behind the skirts of the same workers in order to beg for more public money to subsidize their room rates to conventioneers. The Proposal passed out of committee with Councillor Cockrum abstaining, since his son works for White Lodging, which is building the new Marriott hotel downtown. Cockrum seems to be splitting hairs - abstaining on a Special Resolution that only seeks to influence, but not abstaining on raising taxes to increase funding to the CIB and ICVA, the latter of which uses tax dollars to subsidize the room rates of downtown hotels, thus enriching folks like Councillor Cockrum's son.

And for a trifecta of interesting Proposals passing out of the Rules Committee in one night, was Prop 417, which is another Special Resolution, introduced by Councillors Malone, Pfisterer, B. Mahern, Lutz, Smith, and McHenry. Prop 417 requests that the General Assembly enable the Council to have a binding review of all Township budgets. With the tax caps coming in, the taxing authority of the individual entities in Marion County must begin to be coordinated, in my view. Even if this exact corrective action is not the final mechanism, it does lead us down the path of discussing exactly how to coordinate the property tax levies of all these taxing entities. This passed out of committee with a unanimous 'do pass' recommendation.

Other interesting Proposals up for a final vote of the full Council tonight, I'll just cut and paste from the agenda:

PROPOSAL NO. 413, 2009 (General Ordinance)
INTRODUCED: 11/09/2009
BY: Councillors Brown, Scales and Speedy
REFERRED TO: Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee
DIGEST: amends the Code to clarify the definition and violation of animal at large, to expand the definition of serious injury, to specifically provide for court-ordered forfeiture and/or destruction of an animal if serious injury to a person results from the animal chasing or approaching a person in an aggressive manner while at large, and to change the reference to serious bodily injury to serious injury in the section on owner responsibility for animal attacks
COMMITTEE ACTION: 11/11/2009 Do Pass 6-0

PROPOSAL NO. 419, 2009 (General Resolution)
INTRODUCED: 11/09/2009
BY: Councillors McQuillen and Nytes
REFERRED TO: Municipal Corporations Committee
DIGEST: approves the purchase, construction or acquisition by the Indianapolis-Marion County Building Authority of all or any portion of the Wishard Hospital project and a proposed lease or leases between the Building Authority and the Health and Hospital Corporation to finance all or any portion of the Wishard Hospital project
COMMITTEE ACTION: 11/23/2009 Do Pass As Amended 6-1

Interesting Proposals to be introduced tonight - again by my eye - include:

PROPOSAL NO. 427, 2009 (Fiscal Ordinance)
INTRODUCED: 11/30/2009
BY: Councillor Pfisterer
REFERRED TO: Administration and Finance Committee
DIGEST: provides for additional appropriations and transfers in the 2009 Budget for various city and county agencies affecting various city and county funds to provide for continued operations and services of agencies

Included, among other things, is the 2009 Parks budget transfer of $200,000 from 'personal services' (wages) and $150,000 from 'internal charges' to 'other services and charges', which includes outsourcing contracts. This one deserves scrutiny.

PROPOSAL NO. 428, 2009 (Fiscal Ordinance)
INTRODUCED: 11/30/2009
BY: Councillor Pfisterer
REFERRED TO: Administration and Finance Committee
DIGEST: reduces 2009 appropriations for various city and county agencies

Over $5 million reduction total. Cuts throughout the City and County agencies.

PROPOSAL NO. 457, 2009 (General Resolution)
INTRODUCED: 11/30/2009
BY: Councillor Mansfield
REFERRED TO: Rules and Public Policy Committee
DIGEST: approves a request of the Metropolitan School District of Washington Township to certify its public question referendum to the County Election Board for the May 2010 election

"For the next seven calendar years immediately following the holding of the referendum, shall the Metropolitan School District of Washington Township impose a property tax rate that does not exceed eight cents ($0.08) on each one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed valuation and that is in addition to the school corporation's normal tuition support tax rate?"

PROPOSAL NO. 458, 2009 (General Ordinance)
INTRODUCED: 11/30/2009
BY: Councillor McQuillen
REFERRED TO: Rules and Public Policy Committee
DIGEST: amends the Code with respect to the number of committee meetings for which a councillor may be compensated in any calendar year

This one you should read for yourself to see all the manner of compensation the Councillors get. Not saying its not deserved pay, but it is very detailed in its construction. The change from the status quo appears to be an increase in the maximum number of committee meetings for which a Councillor can be compensated - increasing from the current 40 to a new maximum of 50 committee meetings.

The Council is not slowing down just because of the Holidays. That is for sure.

Rules Committee Reviews Prop 303 & 378

The Rules Committee of the Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council met last night with Prop 303 and 378 on its agenda. The whole meeting was 34 minutes long and can be viewed in the WCTY archives here - click on 'video' for November 4, 2009. The Rules committee is Chaired by Councillor Lutz and Councillors Malone, Pfisterer, Plowman, Cockrum, Mansfield, and Gray were members of the committee present last night. Also in attendance, but not members of this committee were Councillors Coleman and Oliver.

Prop 303 is Councillor Coleman's Proposal that would require the internet posting of all contracts involving the City or County government. This proposal was amended such that contracts must be posted within 14 days of being approved, there must be a search function for the postings, corporate counsel must review all contracts before posting and redact any information not considered public record by state law, all existing contracts going back to January 1, 2008 must be posted within 180 of the effective date of the ordinance, and the effective date of the ordinance will be January 1, 2010. The search feature should include searching by city department or agency, vendor name, and the like. Redactible information would include personal information such as social security numbers and is an action anticipated to be necessary very infrequently, given that contracts rarely contain non-public record information. It was made clear that this Proposal would not include contracts of the various Municipal Corporations. So the CIB, Airport, Library, and Health & Hospitals are not affected by Prop 303. The reason why escaped me, but I did gather that it was based on state law.

Public testimony included a comment by a fellow named Steven Hoback (as I heard his name) who suggested that interlocal agreements, which are not legally considered contracts, also be included in the ordinance. I presented McANA position of support. And last but not least, Keith Robinson of the Indiana Coalition for Open Government presented that organizations position of support. He also suggested that the Council take the ordinance one step further and post proposed contracts online so that the public can review them before the final decision is made to sign off on them. Councillor Coleman indicated he would be working on pulling both suggestions into the framework of Prop 303.

At the end of the discussion, Prop 303 was not voted on, but rather, postponed until the Rules Committee's November 17 meeting. This will give the Office of Finance and Management and the Office of Corporate Counsel time to finish their fiscal impact analysis.

Prop 378 was tabled. This Proposal for a Council Resolution asking Senators Lugar and Bayh to push for the removal of language in HR 915 (FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009) that would pull FedEx from unionizing rules under the Railway Labor Act and put them under the National Labor Relations Act. As discussed earlier, the inclusion of FedEx under RLA was a sweetheart deal to begin with and treated FedEx differently than UPS is treated. Council President Bob Cockrum stated that after the Committee acted on Prop 378 last time, he received phone calls from UPS representatives suggesting there was another side to the story. Cockrum then called for the Council to return the Proposal to the Committee for further consideration. He also invited representatives of FedEx and UPS to come present their viewpoint last night. Even though all had arrived, there were no statements made and the Proposal was tabled. Councillor Cockrum noted that HR 915 had moved out of the House and into two committees of the Senate - one of which had stripped the language in question and the other of which was not expected to consider it for a little while. So, saying it might end up being a moot point, the Committee voted to table the issue until such time as it seems warranted to raise it again. Good move to bring this one back to Committee and great move to table it.

Prop. 303 Gets Hearing Tonight

Tonight's meeting of the City-County Council's Rules and Public Policy Committee will hold a public hearing on Proposal 303. This Proposal, authored by Councillor Coleman, would require all City or County Government contracts be posted online within 7 days of being signed.

This is a breath of sunshine in public access. With technology today, it is entirely feasible and the access is in the best public interest.

The meeting begins at 5:30 pm in room 260 of the City-County Building. The committee is Chaired by Councillor Lutz who can be reached at rlutz@indygov.org