State Legislature Meddling in Indy Yet Again

Last night began the City-County Council committee work to review, amend, and adopt the 2016 budget.

There was one particular item that got a bit of discussion that was quite interesting.

You will recall that the last few budget sessions have been punctuated with an ongoing fight over whether or not to eliminate the local homestead credit on property tax bills of homeowners.  The Democrat controlled Council has refused to eliminate it all at once and even refused to phase it out.

Well, it seems the Ballard Administration has once again turned to the State Legislature to change the rules so that Ballard can get his way.

Currently, income tax revenue (COIT) is used to fund the local homestead credit.  According to Council Counsel Fred Biesecker, with HEA 1485, COIT can no longer be used in this manner after January 1, 2017.  If the Council wants to continue the local homestead credit (LHC) in 2017, it will be forced to RAISE a NEW TAX.

The LHC costs $10 M, but only $2 M actually makes any difference in homeowners' property taxes, since so many of us are being protected by the tax caps.  But, the remaining $8 M doesn't just evaporate, it lessens the tax cap/circuit breaker impact on the many school districts in Marion County, IndyGo, Health & Hospitals, and the Library system.

By upending the current funding source, the Republican controlled State Legislature is reaching into what will likely be a Democrat controlled Mayor's office and forcing it to RAISE TAXES to maintain the status quo.  Of course, if a Republican were to somehow win the election, the Legislature left itself a year to 'correct' course so that no such dilemma would have to be faced by a Republican.

The upshot is not just having to raise a new tax - it also includes having to wade through the weeds and convince the public that it is somehow wise to raise taxes by $10 M so that members of the public can benefit by $2 M.

This is clever and cursed at the same time.

Whenever a local problem is brought to the State Legislature by a Republican, the solution is to do whatever makes the Republican's political life easier.

Whenever a local problem is brought to the State Legislature by a Democrat, the solution is to give them the authority to raise taxes.

And now we see that when a Republican is likely to be succeeded by a Democrat, the solution is to delay the authority to raise taxes until the Democrat is seated and crafting his first budget.

SB621 - The MDC Appointments

As I noted in my last blog entry, SB621, which has now passed through the Legislature and awaits Governor Pence's signature, would remove the ability of the County Commissioners to make two appointments and give one to each of the Mayor and the Council.

The law takes effect on July 1, 2013, presuming, as I do, that the Governor will sign it.

However, by state law, the appointing body gets to set the term of its appointments.

The President of the County Commissioners, and County Assessor, Joe O'Connor, informs me that when Cornelius Brown was appointed in September, 2012, it was for a one year term through September of 2013.  When Ed Mahern was appointed in January, 2012, it was for a 3 year term, which would expire at the end of December, 2014.

This is what the new law would say:

(d) METRO. The metropolitan development commission consists of nine (9) citizen members, as follows:

(1) Five (5) members, of whom no more than three (3) may be of the same political party, appointed by the executive of the consolidated city.

(2) Four (4) members, of whom no more than two (2) may be of the same political party, appointed by the legislative body of the consolidated city.

 

The new state law does not specifically terminate existing appointment terms.  Nor does it say which new appointing body would get to exercise its new appointment power. 

The Transit Bill is Getting More Interesting

The transit bill got a lot more interesting this morning as I read Chris Sikich's article in the Star ("New roadblocks may loom for Indianapolis mass transit expansion").

No, it wasn't Governor Pence's tepid

“I’m someone who believes this economy is still struggling and we ought to be reducing the tax burden on Hoosiers,” Pence said, adding he would keep an open mind.

No, it wasn't the Koch brothers backed 'Americans for Prosperity Indiana', which is anti-tax, anti-tax, and more anti-tax, and which has money to pour into any referendum fight on mass transit.

What made the mass transit bill a lot more interesting, was State Senator Jean Breaux's use of the mass transit bill to push back on SB 621, which sucks much of the power out of the City-County Council and hands it gift-wrapped to Mayor Ryan Vaughn (see this blog's "Welcome to the Republican World").  Briefly, SB 621 would eliminate the 4 At-Large Council seats, give unprecedented and ill-advised budget manipulation to the Mayor, and hand a super majority of Metropolitan Development Commission appointments to the Mayor, among other things.

I have to admit right up front, I am one of Senator Breaux's biggest admirers.  She is one of a handful of Democrats who keep my hope alive that the Democratic Party is still rooted in principle and pragmatism - not greed, ambition, and power mongering.

And while I'm admitting things, let me also say that the mass transit bill would have to remove the rail option (dubbed the 'Stadium to Paladium' route by fellow blogger Fred McCarthy over at Indy Tax Dollars) [edited to add: Fred tells me I got the route wrong.  The Stadium to Paladium is the red line, rapid bus route] and not create the regional authority to get my support.  I don't mind my taxes going up to pay for a beefed up IndyGo, even if my neck of the woods won't gain anything from it.  But, I can't see pushing for a super sized mass transit in a low density region.

Breaux is willing to use the mass transit bill, which one of the very few pieces of legislation that actually needs Democratic support in order to pass, to leverage against the power grabbing SB 621.  As Sikich reports :

Sen. Jean Breaux, D-Indianapolis, said she would “love to have mass transit and I think it’s very important,” but would vote against the transit bill if Senate Bill 621 advances. And she would try to persuade her fellow 12 Democrats to follow suit.

She says Mayor Ballard wants both bills to pass, and he likely will need Democrat support to get the transit bill through a Republican-dominated Senate that is growing increasingly skeptical about transit.

“He has to decide which is most important, which is he the most concerned about,” she said. “And I would hope he would be most concerned about mass transit ... and that he would consider it to be more important than controlling government.”

Democrats like Breaux want mass transit improvements to make life better for a whole lot of people.  Mayor Vaughn wants it for its slush fund value, and if it happens to make life better, fine.  A few people will be beneficiaries of that slush fund.  And the Mayor of Indianapolis will control the new transit authority and to whom it gives its contracts.

The trouble with the Mayor's office is that it thinks it can get both the transit and power bills made into law.  It rather easily managed to roll enough of the Council Democrats over the recent budget battle; some because they agree with Vaughn and some because they have no backbone.

Mayoral spokesman Marc Lotter told Sikich :

Marc Lotter, Ballard’s spokesman, said Ballard is still hopeful transit will pass. Lotter said transit and the Marion County government bill are separate issues. The mayor, he reiterated, wants all of the provisions in Senate Bill 621 except the elimination of at-large seats. However, he does not plan to ask the legislature to stop the attempt to eliminate those seats.

I think they have a very differ battle on their hands when Breaux is standing on the other side, and they underestimate her at their peril.

Someone needs to stand up to the Republican majority, especially in the abuse of power exemplified by SB 621.  I'm glad it is Senator Jean Breaux.  I'm not surprised it is her, but I am glad.

Welcome to the Republican World

We are witnessing what happens when Republican elected officials get full reign in our Statehouse.

Don't like a Democrat running the White House ?  Call for a Constitutional Convention.

Don't like that a Democrat was elected to the State Department of Education?  Change that Department's authority.

Don't care for a Democrat majority on the Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council and in County offices?  Change the rules to favor Republicans, in particular the sitting Mayor.

While all are important with detrimental ramifications, it is the last item that I want to address today.

Two bills were introduced, fashioned after a wish list made by Mayor Ryan Vaughn.  The totality of the bills is to increase the likelihood of a return to a Republican majority Council in the near future, and in increase in the ease with with our City coffers can be looted for those with 'special' connections with the Mayor's office.  Let's face reality - this is likely the last Republican Mayor to serve the City of Indianapolis.  They thought he would be a one-termer, and sold as many of the taxpayer's assets as they could get their hands on during his first term.  Now, they are setting about constructing new slush funds from which to reward their supporters.  Sadly, they are getting a lot of assistance from Democrats on the Council, a point to which I will return later.

The two bills are SB 621, by Senator Mike Young, whose district sits on the southwest corner of Marion County, and HB 1399, by Representative Cindy Kirchhofer, whose district runs from Beech Grove to the eastern border of Marion County.  SB 621 was approved by the Senate and has moved to the House.  HB 1399 has not had any activity.

All that is in HB 1399 was included in SB 621, which had one item amended out of it.  SB 621, however, contains a few items extra.  Both originally would grant the Mayor the authority to change, not just veto, any line item amount of the budget approved by the Council.  This was amended out of SB 621.  Both codify that IMPD would be under the direction and control of the director of public safety, which is what actually happens right now.  Both would remove the requirement that the Mayor's appointments for Director and Deputy Director positions in his/her administration be approved by the Council.  Both remove the authority of the Council to get a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) payment from the CIB.  Both take two appointments to the Metropolitan Development Commission (MDC) from the County Commissioners and give them to the Mayor - making that body composed of 6 appointees of the Mayor and 3 of the Council.  And finally, both require all agency and department budgets be 'allotted' quarterly by the City Controller - essentially giving that person the authority to lower the budgets passed by the Council at his/her whim.

SB 621 also includes the elimination of the 4 At-Large seats on the City-County Council.  If they were eliminated today, the Council majority would shift to Republican control.  If SB 621 passes, there would not be another election for At-Large seats and 2015 would be the last year they serve.

SB 621 goes further, mysteriously dropping the residency requirement to serve as Mayor to 1 year (down from 5 years) and as Councillor to 1 year (down from 2 years).  It reduces the number of seats on the Township Boards from 7 to 5.  It tosses in a weird requirement that the method of choosing Judges to review any appeal of the Council district maps, be made a public record.  And last but not least, it throws in another opaque requirement that absentee ballots be counted in a central location instead of at the precincts, unless the Election Board unanimously agrees otherwise.

That's a lot of stuff.  Vaughn insists he didn't ask that the At-Large seats be eliminated, but that is as much effort as he put in to getting that section removed from the bill.

In my humble opinion, the most onerous aspect of SB 621, as it now stands, is the authority it would grant to the City Controller to amend the budgets after the Council appropriates the funds.  Currently, the Controller must sign off on any contract, stating that there are sufficient funds to pay the obligation.  Should tax receipts be lower than expected - a condition highly unlikely given the way the State Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) already holds some funds back to ensure all funds promised are actually delivered - the Controller can simply decline to sign off on new contracts.  This line by line, quarter by quarter, ability to modify any department or agency's budget simply moves the actions out of the light of day.  We saw this year how vindictive Vaughn can be, when he slashed the Democrat controlled agency budgets, leaving the Republican controlled department budgets alone. To have that accomplished behind closed doors is to place a huge burden on democracy.  We elected Democrats to County offices.  They have a legal budget.  Now to let the Republicans unfettered access to vindictively slash their budgets, or threaten to do so for its extortion potential, out of the light of day, is an example of how far Republicans will go to subvert the will of the electorate in order to benefit the Republican party.

The At-Large seats are similarly being eliminated by SB 621, for the sake of the Republican party.  When UniGov was instituted, the At-Large seats were created to ensure Republican control of the Council.  Now that they work to the advantage of the Democrat party, the Republicans want to change the rules.   I would have had more sympathy on the At-Large issue, had the Democrats not pulled their own version of turning the will of the electorate on its ear with their drastic change in the composition of Council Committee membership - dropping the number of minority party members from one less than the majority party, to only 3.  These lopsided committees have caused less representation for those districts that elected Republicans.

All tit-for-tat aside, there should be a compelling reason to change the representation on the Council.  No real argument has been made to eliminate those 4 At-Large seats.  Until a compelling reason is brought forth, one would hope the seats would remain.  But, again, this is not about good government, its about the Republican party changing the rules to maximize its authority when the elections did not go their way.

The third aspect that should cause concern is the change in appointments to the MDC.  This would give the Mayor control of the Airport, the CIB, and the MDC.  The MDC is the body that creates TIF districts and controls how the revenue is spent - and who gets those contracts.  The County Commissioners are among the few who 'get it' when it comes to the negative consequences of unfettered TIFs and who see a reason to get analytical when it comes to reviewing them.  On their behalf, their appointee Ed Mahern, has asked tough questions and made tough statements.  This impertinence has angered Vaughn considerably.  It is not enough for Vaughn that he gets his way regardless, as many of the Democrats on the Council push for one TIF after another, even though the districts pull money from basic services.  This aspect of the bill is likely as much targeted for Mahern's removal as it is to Mayoral control of the MDC.  This is not in the best interest of the taxpayers.  But, it is being pursued not for the taxpayers, rather for the Republican party.

Removing the CIB from the list of municipal corporations that can have a PILOT levied against them is simply pulling the authority from the Council after it had the audacity to think for itself and not do what Vaughn told them to do.

Much of the rest of this bill is simply weird.  Why change the residency requirements or make a bit more paperwork targeting judicial review of challenges to Council district maps?  Five instead of seven Township Board seats is almost irrelevant.  As is the approval of Department heads by the Council.  And, why does Vaughn care where the absentee votes are counted?  Certainly the Election Board could count them at a central location right now, if it so chose.  But, the Democrats have two votes on the Election Board and the Republicans only one.  So, its time to change the rules.

As I noted much earlier, this is how Republican rewrite the laws when the voters have the temerity to elect Democrats.  Its not about good government, not by a long shot.  Its about Republican party dominance - by hook or by changing the rules after the game has begun.

Indiana - Giving Arkansas a Run For Its Money

The State Legislature that once tried to legally redefine the area of a circle and require pi be rounded off has again demonstrated its ignorance by passing out of one chamber, a bill that would equate creationism with science.  Yes, Indiana's motto surely must be "Indiana - Giving Arkansas a Run for its Money".  Try attracting science and technology companies, those companies that make billions clinging to the tenets of actual science, to a state that screams "we are science illiterate and we are proud of that fact".

Meanwhile, both chambers have passed, and the Governor who wants to be Vice-President has signed, a bill making Indiana the 23rd so called right to work state.  It is shear nonsense that Indiana will attract more companies by this means.  Plain and simple, this is a union busting measure.   I would suggest that any person who opts to not pay union dues, be forced to forfeit the collective bargaining muscle of the union members and forgo the grievance process afforded by working in a union shop.  Fair is fair.  No dues - no services.

Adding to the triumph of the 18th century over anything modern, the Legislature has kicked a mass transit bill to the curb yet again. 

Watch out Arkansas, Indiana's on the move.

HB1006 - Proposed Elimination of Certain Professional Licenses and Inspections

Its one thing to let Aunt Hilda put a bowl on your head and proceed to give you a hair cut.  Its quite another to trust her with a chemical peel.

And, if you can't trust Aunt Hilda, why would you trust a perfect stranger?  Well, for now at least, the State of Indiana requires appropriate training and professional conduct to gain and retain a cosmetology license.  The professionalism of the Indiana State Board of Cosmetology and the rules they promulgate to protect public safety may not be perfect, but it is far better than just taking your chances in Indiana.

There are those in the Statehouse that would prefer you take your chances.  They would prefer to give the impression that regulation and licensing of cosmetologists is just expensive assurance that you won't get an unflattering haircut.

Truth is, the Board of Cosmetology regulates the proper sanitation of instruments, appropriate training on the use of harsh and dangerous chemicals, the requirements for maintenance of safe equipment such as tanning beds and electrolysis needles and units, among other public safety and consumer protection issues.  Up front proper training at beauty colleges and ongoing inspections of salons and shops are essential elements for consumer protection, not from bad hair days, but from serious infection or injury.

Truth is, too, that the licensing fees collected for Cosmetologists bring in more revenue than it costs to inspect salons and beauty colleges.  According the fiscal impact analysis of HB1006 by the Indiana Legislative Services Agency, the state takes in $983,646 in Cosmetology license fees but spends $203,044 to administer the licenses, including conducting the inspections. 

HB1006 is authored by Representative David Wolkins. Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana reports that Rep. Wolkins has a pro-consumer voting record on legislation that group follows, of 25% over the last four years - with a high of 50% in 2010 and a low of 0% in 2011.   They say of their ratings in general, " We consider that 80% is a passing grade for the legislators, meaning that if their "Pro-Consumer Voting Percentage" is 80% or above, they are working to protect consumers in the State House. If their percentage is below 80%, they are not working to protect consumers."

HB1006 also seeks to deregulate professional licensing and minimal requirements for dietitians, hearing aid dealers, private investigators and security guards.

Some may be content to put their personal consumer safety in the hands of Aunt Hilda and Rep. Wolkins.  I, for one, am not.

WIBC Reporting Deal To Put Right To Work On Ballot

WIBC is reporting that there has been a deal struck by the Legislators to put Right To Work up for a vote by Referendum on the November ballot. 

The Arrogance of Power - Lobbyists Over Citizens

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels' decision to limit the occupancy of the State House to 3000 people is clearly and obviously designed to keep the Unions and sympathetic citizens from inconveniencing himself and the State Legislators with their presence and expression of their opinions in numbers.   His decision to allow lobbyist preferential entry is downright chilling to Democracy and the First Amendment.

Make no mistake, Mitch Daniels and any Legislator who supports this thinly veiled attack does not value ANY citizen nor ANY citizen's opinion on ANY matter.  Letting the paid jackals have clear and free entry, and without having to even stand in line, is blatantly against the interests of free and open government.  Each and every Legislator should be asked to go on the record as supporting or opposing these First Amendment assaults.

Buy the way - it costs $95 per year to sign up to be a lobbyist and you must be compensated by your employer as a primary qualification to enroll.  So, this has to be added to the list of 'pay to play' and 'paid to play' political advantages.  You have to be sure they have a bankroll sufficient enough to treat the politicians to all those nice freebies that they are accustomed to.  You and I aren't likely to do so.

The State website has a list of registered lobbyists for 2011.  It consist of 63 pages, each with about 13 names, for a rough total of 830 people who are more important to Daniels than you or I.

I hope the Indiana ACLU will step in with a lawsuit on behalf of a citizen who wanted to exercise their RIGHT to petition their government, but was denied entry to the Statehouse while a Lobbyist was allowed in.

Navistar/Pure Power Abatement Illuminates New Law - New Bad Law

The Metropolitan Development Commission is in the process of granting Pure Power, a Navistar company, a 7 year abatement amounting to about $897,712.76, or a 62.1% savings.  The MDC will hold a public hearing on this abatement at their regularly scheduled meeting on July 20.

The abatement resolution and statement of benefits estimates that Pure Power would retain 30 jobs, create 200 additional jobs by 2013, and invest $19 million in new equipment.

I send my readers over to Advance Indiana for a detailed look at the abatement failure of Navistar and clawback implementation of $5m of that abatement in his entry "Ballard Administration Continues to Bleed Taxing Districts With Abatements".  Scott Olson, reporter for the IBJ, published information about the abatement and Navistar's history in "Navistar seeks more tax breaks after old deal failed".

What caught my eye and got me to uttering "HUH?", was in the Star report by Ted Evanoff, "$19M upgrade to preserve 200 jobs at Navistar foundry".   The sentence was near the end:

"Over the seven years [of the abatement], the company would save $897,712 in property taxes and pay $574,879."

That's over half.  I hoped that was a typo of some sorts.  But, alas it was not.  [edited to add: the MDC is not considering utilizing the new law with this abatement.  The schedule they are considering is what the old part of the Indiana Code dictates for a 7 year abatement]

Long story short, the last Legislative session enacted a new law that is so watered down that abatements look to be ripe for the plundering and could result in 10 year, 100% abatements.

If you want to read it for yourself:

IC 6-1.1-12.1-17


Alternative deduction schedules

Sec. 17. (a) A designating body may provide to a business that is established in or relocated to a revitalization area and that receives a deduction under section 4 or 4.5 of this chapter an alternative abatement schedule based on the following factors:

(1) The total amount of the taxpayer's investment in real and personal property.

(2) The number of new full-time equivalent jobs created.

(3) The average wage of the new employees compared to the state minimum wage.

(4) The infrastructure requirements for the taxpayer's investment.

(b) An alternative abatement schedule must specify the percentage amount of the deduction for each year of the deduction. An alternative abatement schedule may not exceed ten (10) years.

The new law originated with HB1007.  The original language laid out a specific manner in which the percentage of an abatement could be calculated, based on the size of the investment, number of new jobs created, average wage of new jobs, and infrastructure already in place.  These rules were struck from the bill almost immediately.  It is now up to each city or county to determine. 

Lest you think the rules in the original language were tough...  Under those rules, Pure Power/Navistar would have qualified for a 10 year abatement, with 100% of property taxes forgiven for each of the first 7 years, 75% forgiven for year 8, 50% for year 9, and 25% for year 10.
 
This bill did a number of other things as well.  More on that later.
 
This past legislative session was nothing to be proud of.  Now the taxpayers can expect even bigger chucks of tax dollars given back to big business in the form of higher and higher abatements.

In a Democracy, The Public Comment Period Never Ends

Stealing a motto from the I-69 movement - In a Democracy, the public comment period never ends.

Today I am heading to the Statehouse to support the Democrats in their efforts to protect working Hoosiers.

I will attempt to provide updates throughout the day as to what is happening.

[edited Feb 25, 2011 to add: links to video I shot while attending the Labor Rally at the Indiana Statehouse on February 23, 2011

Walkabout
Raising Voices in Song
Chants Through the Day ]

IndyStar Reporting Breaking News - Indiana Democrats Trigger Showdown

The IndyStar website is reporting that Indiana House Democrats have left the State in order to kill so-called 'right to work', also known as 'right to work for less' legislation.

Seats on one side of the Indiana House were nearly empty today as House Democrats departed the the state rather than vote on anti-union legislation.

A source tells the Indianapolis Star that Democrats are headed to Illinois, though it was possible some also might go to Kentucky. They need to go to a state with a Democratic governor to avoid being taken into police custody and returned to Indiana.

and,

Today, the union members who have filled the Statehouse — an estimated 4,000 according to the Indiana State Police — held a rally, chanting such things as “Ditch Mitch” and “Save Our Families,” which he must have heard as he worked in his nearby Statehouse office.

More as it develops.

Union Busting Reaches Fever Pitch In Indiana

Union busting is all the rage these days, and the backlash is just about to be ramped up in earnest.

At the Indianapolis International Airport, CEO John Clark has announced his intention of revoking collective bargaining rights for airport employees. Make serious note here, that nothing happens at the airport without the full consent of Mayor Ballard, who appoints 6 of the 8 board members. IndyStar reporter Bruce Smith, reported on Thursday (Feb 17, 2011):

Jeff Withered, business agent for Operating Engineers Local 399, was blunt in saying negotiations ended abruptly after Clark became involved. He said that smacks of a betrayal of promises by Clark and the Indianapolis Airport Authority board to allow collective bargaining.

"John Clark stopped it and told us to go away for two years," Withered said.

Clark will ask the airport board Friday to begin steps to repeal the ordinance passed in December 2008 that granted collective bargaining rights for airport employees.

The board is expected to hold a hearing March 11 on an ordinance to repeal those collective bargaining rights.

At least three employee groups have shown interest in forming unions.

Airport Board meeting agendas can be obtained by visiting the Board's webpage and clicking on the calendar for board meetings in the upper right hand corner of the page. As of right now, no Board meeting has been added to the calendar for March 11, so keep checking.

Meanwhile the Republican-controlled State Legislature is pushing forward on a large number of bills, all of which hack at one key component after another, of workers rights to collective bargaining or union operations. They want to make collective bargaining illegal for all state workers. They want to prohibit union/government negotiated project labor agreements. They want to increase the size of a project wherein a common wage would have to be determined. They want to limit what can be part of the negotiated package for union contracts in educational institutions.

The idea that a group of American individuals should be legally prohibited from associating with one another and joining together to improve their work environment and pay, is in direct contradiction with the inalienable rights enunciated in our Declaration of Independence.

The real aim of all of these legislative efforts is not to make Indiana more competitive in attracting business. It is to bust the unions, and allow employers to do whatever they want in work conditions and wages. It is also, to reduce the ability of unions to lobby for better laws and to contribute money and manpower to Democratic candidates.

For much of this week, the Central Indiana Labor Council plans rallies at the Statehouse. The schedule is:
Monday, February 21 -- 9 am
Tuesday, February 22 -- 10 am
Wednesday, February 23 -- 10 am
Thursday, February 24 -- 10 am

The Central Indiana Jobs With Justice is focusing on the hearings on HR1468, the so-called 'right to work' bill. That hearing begins at 9 am, Monday, February 21, in room 156A in the basement of the Statehouse. If you cannot be there, even though Monday is a holiday (thanks to unions, by the way), you can watch live video feed from the Statehouse through the Legislature website, by clicking on the 'Watch Indiana General Assembly Live' button in the right hand corner of the home page.

Unions may represent a small fraction of workers in our State. But there can be no mistaking the positive influence of those contracts on the rest of us.

I'll Jump In -- Indiana's Proposed Constitutional Amendment To Limit Marriage Defies Common Sense

Democrats are rightly taken to task by Matt Stone of IndyStudent (see "To My Democrat Friends"), and Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project (see "What They're Saying: Indiana's Marriage Discrimination Amendment"), for remaining mute as HJR0006 sails through our State Legislature. This bill would change our State Constitution to include this definition of marriage:

Section 38. Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

I do not speak for the Party, nor, do I imagine they would ever ask me to. What I am, is a Democrat.

I don't get it, pure and simple. I cannot understand why anyone cares who gets married to whom. Much less can I grasp even a glimmer of why some people feel compelled to post preemptive strikes against personal freedoms in our State Constitution.

The unfettered Republican majorities in the Indiana House and Senate, have pushed forward this immoral and unAmerican piece of legislation while pretending to singularly occupy the moral high ground and be the stalwarts for what made America great. They are wrong. They are out of step with history. The Party that revels in slogans like "Don't Tread On Me", often revels in treading on others.

Passage is certain. I don't know if Governor Daniels has to sign off on it, and if so, what impact a potential run for the White House might have on a veto or not.

At least all Constitutional amendments must be passed by two successively constituted General Assemblies and ratified by a majority of voters. If speed bumps exist, they are the next two elections and the voters who make it to the polls.

Following the State Legislature From Your Living Room

If you'd like to keep up with what is happening in the 2011 General Assembly, there are options you have to do so from your living room and with a schedule that fits yours.

First, the General Assembly's website offers streaming media from both chambers when they are in session, and from key committee hearings. There are also archives of past broadcasts. All are accessible from www.in.gov/legislative/2441.htm .

A list of all bills is available by topic (click here).

A list of all bills still alive by number is also available (click here).

When you see a bill whose topic interests you from either of the two lists, click on the link and you can get tons of information on that particular bill. This information includes the latest version of the bill, its progress through the session and how folks voted along the way, and all amendments offered. What I have found to be most useful are 'fiscal impact statements', which are put together by the Legislative Services Agency. The LSA summarizes the key elements of each bill and analyzes the costs and/or revenues to state and local government for each element. I very often find that their summary makes the bill itself far more understandable, and it certainly points out key elements you might otherwise miss by trying to scan the bill itself. They will update their analysis as each bill is amended, so always pick the latest version of the fiscal impact statement.

Did the CIB Really Need Those Tax Increases & Loans?

Remember the CIB bailout saga over the last two years?

Back in early 2009, the CIB and its local allies, pleaded with anyone at the Statehouse who would listen. Everything was bleak. They absolutely HAD to have $43 million more money for operations and $43 million to avoid catastrophe with their bonds. Lucas Oil Stadium had not yet opened, but it was projected to cost $20 million a year more to operate than the old Hoosier Dome. The Legislature ultimately gave the City-County Council the authority to increase the hotel tax, increase the footprint of the Professional Sports Development Area, and the opportunity to get a $9 million per year loan from the State for each of 3 years.

Unpopular though it was, and armed with assurances that none of the money would be given to the Pacers organization, the Council passed the Legislature's bailout package in 2009.

Given the dire prognostications, and the fact that the Legislature and Council actions would increase annual revenue by $22 million at the most, you might think it impossible for the CIB to squirrel away $20 million in 2009 and another $20 million again in 2010. But, you would be wrong.

Each year, as part of its budget ordinance, the CIB estimates what the fund balance will be that year, and also what the fund balance will be at the end of the next year - given the budget they submitted for approval.

Ultimately, the CIB operating budget for 2009 was set at $65 million. They ended up actually spending 'only' $44 million. Those savings showed up in their fund balance. They estimated the December 31, 2009, operating fund balance at $5.6 million back in 2008, as shown in the 2009 budget ordinance. A year later, they improved their estimate of the December 31, 2009, operating fund balance to $26.0 million.

In August of 2009, they estimated that the operating fund balance at the end of 2010 would be $22.8 million, given the budget they introduced for 2010. Now the CIB estimates the fund balance at the end of 2010 will be $45.3 million.

To recap, while the Council raised taxes and allowed loans totaling less than $22 a year, the CIB managed to pad their operating fund balance by $40 million in two years.

Meanwhile, they managed to give the Pacers $10 million and collect $4 million of property taxes from the MDC this year.

So, did they really need the increased hotel tax and the increased footprint of the PSDA and the loan from the State?

The CIB Is Working Hard For the Pacers

Time is tight for me today, so I will be sending you to read some good blogs arising from two IBJ articles on the CIB and its finances. Short story is that the CIB is crowing about how well it turned around its failed finances; so much so they are pulling a profit now and don't need the State's gracious offer for a $27 million loan at 5 % plus interest rate. All that despite the partially successful 'end times for downtown' campaign they waged all year to secure wads of money that at times added up to $50 million this year and another $50 million this year and every year going forward. A few short hours later the CIB is reported to be eyeballing that loan and talking about that $15 million gift per year, every year going forward, to the Simons and Pacers to run Conseco Fieldhouse. The Pacers already get 100% of all revenue from the Fieldhouse, but you know how hard it can be to pull a profit when you can't fill the seats for your home games because you picked players whose antics turned the community sour on your franchise.

Here are the originating IBJ article links:

http://www.ibj.com/cib-finances-improving-though-concerns-remain/PARAMS/article/11031

http://www.ibj.com/cib-may-accept-27-million-state-loan-after-all/PARAMS/article/11050

And the great blog entries by Paul Ogden and Gary Welsh:

http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2009/11/cib-likely-to-accept-27-million-loan.html

http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2009/11/cib-sees-surplus-but-will-still-borrow.html

Let me just add, all the seats for the Capital Improvement Board of Managers are ended January 15, 2010 -- this by the same legislation that allowed the City Council to increase the Hotel Tax by 1% to capture another $4 million a year and expand the Professional Sports Development Area to capture another $8 million a year, and offer the $9 million a year loan for three years from the state to the CIB. The same old people can be reappointed, but hopefully the appointing bodies will not be so lame in their decisions. Top of my list to be gone are Bob Grand, who represents the Pacers and has always had a clear conflict of interest, and Pat Early who has served on the CIB for nearly a generation and helped negotiate the original Conseco Fieldhouse contract and who has been the prime cheerleader for giving the ENTIRE store away to the Pacers, just like he voted for the ENTIRE store be given to the Colts.

All of this sudden burst of energy directed to the benefit of the Simons and the Pacers may be so that their work is done before a responsible Board takes their place. Well, I would hope a responsible Board takes their place. That awaits the list of appointees and some time for their ambitions to be assessed.

Wishard Referendum - Role of Legislature and Added Information

I want to take a short detour into the actions of the Legislature, that in the 11th hour of the last night of the 2009 Special Session, gutted the democratic process inherent in a referendum. Representative Bill Crawford and Senator Luke Kenley are the two names that arise most often as the major players in the special law written for Wishard. Whoever the players were, shame on you.

The referendum law for large capital projects requires the following wording:

"Shall ________ (insert the name of the political subdivision) issue bonds or enter into a lease to finance ___________ (insert a brief description of the controlled project), which is estimated to cost not more than _______ (insert the total cost of the project) and is estimated to increase the property tax rate for debt service by ___________ (insert increase in tax rate as determined by the department of local government finance)?".

The midnight insertion for Wishard provides that they can use the following wording:

"Shall the Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana, issue bonds or enter into a lease to finance (insert the description of the project)?".

The additional specifics must be provided in a legal notice that links the project information to the referendum. Of course, few people will see or read the legal notice. It has been provided at HadEnoughIndy previously. Unlike with other referenda, nowhere is the total cost of the project required, just the amount of the bonds that will finance the deal. So, as Matt Gutwein, CEO of the Marion County Health & Hospitals Corp., likes to brag about, there is a savings account with $150 million that H&H has managed to squirrel away. According to the Wishard project website, that $150 million will also be spent on this project and add to the bonded amounts that require disclosure and which were disclosed not to exceed $703 million. That website, by the way does not describe the project at all - no number or uses of the buildings - nothing - not even the artist renderings Gutwein has been hauling around the County. http://www.wishardfacts.org/ check it out, its just a PR piece.

Required of all referendum questions, is specific details, including per square foot charges, that are to be posted on the State Department of Local Government Finance website. The per square foot charges listed there for the Wishard project are:

Hospital building and ambulatory clinic - $635.96 (estimated).
Administrative office building - $286.43 (estimated).
Parking garage - $56.69 (estimated).
Central utility plant - $1,335.55 (estimated).

The per square foot information would be far more valuable if there were also an estimate of the total square footage of each structure. But, even the above information has value.

The 'central utility plant' has received very little attention. The only question I have heard posed, but not answered, was if it was going to be based on 'green' energy. Given the cost per square foot, renewed efforts to gain clarification of its purpose and usefulness, especially since there is access to electricity from more conventional sources, should be undertaken.

The Administrative office building is listed on the artist rendering, available through the IBJ, as 'Faculty Office', as in an office building for IU Medical Instructors. So, a good question is, why should Marion County taxpayers be on the hook, either through proceeds of its Health & Hospital Corp. or through increased property taxes, for a building to benefit the IU Medical School? Which, by the way, is contributing nothing to the project, either for construction or for ongoing operations, even though it is a vital asset as a teaching hospital for IU and provides its faculty with the opportunity to also have a private practice.

More questions to come in a future entry entitled "What If..." But, for this moment, lets not forget that the Legislature allowed our first public referendum to be watered down to essentially say "We do good works. Shall we continue?" Hopefully the democratic process promised by referenda will not be gutted for any future project and the rights of the voters will be held in higher esteem than shown for the Wishard project referendum.

The Role of the Press

I see two opinion pieces in today's Star regarding the train wreck that is this Legislative Session. First is Matt Tully's great column that reaffirms his writing and thinking talents. In 'Our lawmakers failed us again', Matt writes:

After four months of silly games and petty politics, lawmakers ended their 2009 session without fulfilling their only constitutional duty: passage of a new state budget. Despite a winter and spring spent cashing paychecks from taxpayers and enjoying free meals from lobbyists, the General Assembly failed Indiana.

and

First, the General Assembly is in dire need of new leaders. The annual brawls between House Speaker Pat Bauer and Republican leader Brian Bosma have turned the House into a gridlocked embarrassment. Second, there is a stunning lack of effective rebels in either chamber willing to challenge their legislative bosses and the old way of doing things. Third, if things don't change and if the legislature doesn't start thinking less about politics and more about policy, Indiana is going to sink even further behind other states.

The Star Editorial Board also took on the pathetic Session in an editorial titled 'A sad state of legislative leadership', which started with:

Rating the Indiana General Assembly's sessions is like rating Chicago Cubs seasons. The scale typically runs from disappointing to bad, to dismal to disastrous.

The legislative session that expired Wednesday night deserves a spot on the low end of that register for several reasons, including lawmakers' failure to complete a state budget before they adjourned. Now, taxpayers must bear the cost of a special session at a time when revenues are falling and services are squeezed. That's a minor concern in the scheme of things, but it does illustrate how ineffective and even irresponsible lawmakers were over the course of the session.

These are representative cases where the role of the Press in a free society is to call out elected officials who do not do the work of the people. This is a good thing.

But come election time, lets watch closely for who the Star endorses. While it is clear that Dan Burton will definitely feel the Star's wrath, will they settle for that token gesture? Will they do their usual thing of shedding crocodile tears for the state of our city, state and nation, then endorse all but one or two incumbents?

Deep Pock'-et

deep pock'-et 1. n. what the Indiana State Legislators, particularly Senators Luke Kenley, Teresa Lubbers, James Merritt, Patricia Miller, and Michael M. Young, think the taxpayers of Marion County have.

deep pock'-et 1. v. act of shielding a bill under consideration by the Indiana State Legislature from a fair vote on the floor example: Speaker of the House, Pat Bauer, sensing passage of the popular bill to put tax caps in the state constitution, deep pockets it.