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.

Gas Tax "Windfall" - Not What the Mayor Makes it Out to Be

Here's how it looked back on August 14, 2013, when IBJ reporter Kathleen McLaughlin penned an article about Mayor Greg Ballard's proposal to float a bond to add revenue to the nearly depleted RebuildIndy fund:

City officials said Thursday that they intend to spend $350 million over the next three years to improve streets, sidewalks, trails and bridges.

Most of that money will come from existing funds, but $135 million will be borrowed against increased state transportation funding.

...The city expects its share of state gas tax revenue to increase by $7 million, and will leverage that into the bond issue.

The increase in gas tax revenue sent to the City from the State was refined to $7.8 million.  That's were it stood on August 29, when the Public Works Committee of the City-County Council rejected Proposal 250.  I noted in a blog entry the next day that the Mayor's statements to the press were far from the truth.

Well, add one more lie to the list.

I received the real gas tax revenue numbers from the State Auditor's office.  The estimated 2013 distribution of the "Motor Vehicle Highway" revenue to the City of Indianapolis and the County of Marion is $20.25 million.  The estimated 2014 distribution is $23.75 million.  That is a difference of $3.5 million.  Less than half of the $7.8 million the Mayor, Bond Bank Director/Deputy Mayor Deron Kintner, and DPW Director Lori Miser have been touting as the windfall that will pay for the bond.



I added the color highlights to better direct attention to the figures applicable to the City and County

As I noted earlier, the Proposal actually called for annual payments of $9 million on the bond.  So, given that the real gas tax revenue increase is a paltry (by comparison) $3.5 million - they had plans to tap $5.5 million every year for 30 years of money that is usually needed for other things in DPW.  That's not only taking the next generation's increased gas tax, its also trading existing services that by rights should remain in place for the next 3 decades.

There still remains the $240 million of revenue that is already earmarked for road and sidewalk repair over the next 3 years - and that is no small amount of money.

But, to hear Greg Ballard tell it, if the Council does not allow the City to float this additional bond, there will be no infrastructure improvements at all.  That's the story he and his administration are repeating to the media, to the neighborhoods, and to the Council.  It is all a pack of lies.  Mayor Ballard even went so far as to accost Democrat At-Large Councillor Zach Adamson at the Hob Nob with "We're going to murder you guys on this.  You're dead."

They must think they have a lock on the press, a lock on what information gets to the neighborhoods, and a lock on the facts as they prefer to make them out to be.  They must think we are all stupid.

As more of the truth comes out, and it will, I am increasingly grateful to the members of the Public Works committee who voted against this fiscally unsound and cynically presented Proposal to float these bonds - Councillors Vernon Brown, Pam Hickman, Bill Oliver, Monroe Gray, and Zach Adamson.

Council Meets Tonight

The Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council meets tonight.  The agenda lists a couple of items that caught my eye.

Among those Proposals to be introduced, three stand out.  Prop 162 would appropriate $150,000 to the Election board for legal expenses.  The proposal does not say what prompts the need, just that the necessity has arisen since the budget was finalized last fall.  It will be interesting to see what issue compelled the increased legal fees.

Prop 163 and 164 are tandem proposals aimed at sweeping up the last debris left over from Mayor Vaughn's successful budget blackmail action of last fall; when he vetoed several line items in the Council-adopted 2013 budget.  The former proposal reduces the approved budget by the amount vetoed (which targeted County Offices), while the latter proposal restores the targeted County Office budgets to pre-blackmail status.

Up for a vote is one I had not followed and seems innocuous enough.  Prop 108 would add one more appointment to the domestic violence fatality review team; this person being from a domestic violence response organization.  There currently are 15 members, all of which appear to be appointed by the Council.  According to the agenda, this proposal passed out of committee by a vote of 7-0 and was passed by the full Council 29-0.  And yet, it was vetoed by the Mayor.  Go figure.  This will be interesting, particularly to the point of who votes to override the veto, and who does not.

Prop 105 would establish an Economic Improvement District for the Fountain Square commercial area.  This would allow the collection of an extra tax based on street frontage.  The extra tax was approved by a majority of those affected.  After 5 years, another vote of those folks would decide if the EID would be approved for another 5 year stint.  At the 10 year mark, a new petition would have to be circulated to see if there was continued interest in the area.

Prop 133 is yet another abatement, or two actually, for Eli Lilly.  This proposal would approve a 10 year real property abatement and a 10 year personal property abatement for new construction and equipment at their 1555 Kentucky Avenue and 1223 W. Morris Street facilities.  There was much controversy over whether Lilly met its obligations for job creation and investment a couple of years ago in a previous property tax abatement deal.  This time they are not adding any new jobs and will either transfer 175 current employees or use contract workers.  They are also using vigorous hedging language to estimate the actual investment dollars and expected completion dates.  With all the hedging, one surely must wonder if anything in these new abatement deals are anywhere near legally binding.

Now, Prop 141 is the best proposal of the evening.  This one was initiated by Councillor Vernon Brown, cosponsored by Councillor Christine Scales, and significantly added to by Councillor Zach Adamson.  Brown reintroduced the creation of a fund which could be used for public safety recruit classes.  This was passed by the Council last year and was vetoed by Mayor Vaughn as part of the blackmail vetoes.  Brown makes a valid point in reintroducing this measure - that if public safety is truly the Mayor's top priority, then recruit classes or training of experienced, but newly hired, officers and firefighters is a must.  Adamson added that $6 million from RebuildIndy money should be appropriated to the fund - the same amount that is being dedicated to the dubious cricket park on the eastside.  That addition is poetic.

"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.

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' Power Grab Belies Words Of Interest In Cooperation

The Democrats, led by Councillor Vernon Brown and supported by Council President Maggie Lewis, have ignored the electorate and composed Council committees to the super advantage of the Democrats.

Reported last Thursday by the Indy Star's Jon Murray on his blog Deep Fried Politics, the Council's committee on committees voted to increase all committee memberships by one Democrat.   This gives the 'edge' to the Ds by 5 to 3.  This is in addition to the outrageous 6-2 composition of the Rules Committee that was sprung on the Rs during a scheduled recess of the first Council meeting of 2012.

Why?

Nobody pays attention to the vote in committees.  When someone does pay attention, it is just to note that a proposal got out of committee with a 'do-pass' recommendation.  So, when there is a party-line vote, which happens somewhat often, a proposal will either die in committee ('nough said) or it will move out of a committee with a 5-3 vote instead of a 4-3 vote.  Big deal.

Maybe its so that the Ds can make even 'more' money through extra per meeting monetary compensation.  Again, big deal.

The real cost is any high ground the Ds had coming into 2012 and split government.  It no longer exists.  The Democrats have, through their own actions, painted themselves as petty, power hungry, officeholders who put the party and the trappings of power over the people.

It is a sad day for the Democratic Party in Marion County, as our standard bearers prove themselves to be not ready for prime time.

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."