Lobbyists - What They Are Getting Paid To Promote

Lobbyists are registering to conduct business in City Hall for 2016.  So far, the City's Lobbyist database lists 20 individuals who work for 8 companies and represent the interests of 26 organizations.

Compensation for the lobbying, when listed on the forms, totaled $471,529.46.

Here are efforts, which I present divided into topics.

SPORTS

Indy, Sports and Entertainment (which lists indyeleven.com as its website) have hired Joe Loftus of Barnes & Thornberg to lobby the Office of the Mayor.  The registration notes the topic as "economic & industrial development" and a compensation of $67,410.

Pacers Basketball has Lacy Johnson, Ice Miller, working for it, chatting up the City-County Council regarding "amusements, games, & sports", for $8625.

TECH/IT

Xerox Business Services is spending $54,894 with Joe Loftus, B&T, to lobby the Mayor's Office.

Cincinnati Bell Technical Solutions is down for $184.87 compensation to Mark Shublak, Ice Miller, to talk with the IT Board.

ELECTIONS

Election Systems and Software is plunking down a total of $19,589.74 for B&T lobbyists Brian Burdick and D. William Moreau, Jr, as well as Ice Miller's Carl Drummer.  They are all lobbying the Marion County Clerk and Election Board.

RBM Consulting has hired Greg Hahn, of Bose Public Affairs Group (BPAG), to lobby the same folks for $8000.

CORRECTIONS

Perhaps many of these folks are interested in a new Justice Center or what happens to them if one is built.

CCA of Tennessee is spending $120,000 for B&T's Brian Burdick and D. William Moreau, Jr. to make a case to the City County Council, the Marion County Sheriff, and the Office of the Mayor.

WMB Heartland Justice Partners has Ice Miller folks, Lesa Dietrick, Tom John, and Carl Drummer working the Department of Public Safety, the MC Sheriff, and the Office of the Mayor for $2341.53.

Bingham Greenbaum Doll is employing the efforts of Joseph Smith of Faegre Baker Daniels to talk with the City-County Council, and compensating him with $1890.

3M is spending a mere $69.83 for a slice of Tom John's time with Marion County Community Corrections.

ENGINEERING

DB Engineering has hired Tom John and Carl Drummer of Ice Miller to address their concerns with the Department of Public Works and the Mayor's Office - for $597.54.

Infrastructure Engineering has John and Drummer talking with the same folks for $470.69.

Commonwealth Engineers has engaged Kyle Walker of Kyle Walker Consulting to speak with the Department of Public Works, the topic being "environment".  No compensation was noted.

RQAW Consulting likewise has Walker talking with the Department of Water Works (huh?) about highways and roads/streets.  Again the compensation was not listed.

BILLBOARDS

This lobby is going gangbusters again this year.

Outfront Media is spending $16,978.35 for 3 BPAG lobbyists, John Cochran, Trent Hahn, and Greg Hahn.  Trent didn't list who he is lobbying, but the other two noted the Department of Metropolitan Development and the topic of "zoning".

Lamar Companies has hired the same three to lobby for the same thing with the same department - for $8850.63.

Clear Channel Outdoor prefers B&T, hiring D. William Moreau, Jr., and Matthew Morgan for $5362 to chat up DMD on "zoning" matters.  They also are using their own employee, John Kisiel to lobby the City-County Council regarding "other".  Kisiel lists $13,875 as his compensation.


MISCELLANEOUS

Angie's List is compensating lobbyists Carl Drummer and Lacy Johnson of Ice Miller with $71,978 to address "economic and industrial development" matters with the City-County Council and the Office of the Mayor.

BC Initiative is spending $38,217 for the lobbying efforts of Joe Loftus, B&T, to speak with the Mayor's Office regarding "charitable & nonprofit organizations".  BC Initiative is an affiliate of BioCrossroads.

Herman & Kittle Properties are down for only $37.61 for Tom John, Ice Miller, to talk about "planning/land use" with the Bond Bank and DMD.

Salesforce is spending $200 on its own employee, Amy Waggoner, to talk about "other" with DMD.

Bose Public Affairs Group feels the need to hire another lobbying group to represent it with the City-County Council, DMD, and the Mayor's Office on the ever popular topic of "other".  They have hired Carl Drummer of Ice Miller for $839.30 in this effort.

Ambrose Property Group has Drummer and Lacy Johnson, Ice Miller, dealing with the City-County Council regarding "other" for $2006.96.

IU Health is lobbying the City-County Council, too, regarding Health and Healthcare.  They have Lacy Johnson representing them for $6570.

National Strategies, LLC, for Taser International, Inc., is compensating two BPAC folks, John Cochran and Jennifer Ping, a total of $5000 to talk "safety" with the Department of Public Safety, Information Services Agency, the IT Board, and the Office of the Mayor.

The National Rifle Association has registered their employee, Christopher Kopacki, to address "other" with the Mayor's Office and the Council.  His listed compensation is $197.41 for this role.

Last but not least, Giant Eagle - the grocery concern - is spending $17,344 with BPAC.  Three of their lobbyists, Melissa Coxey, Ahmed Young, and John Cochran are registered to speak with the City-County Council about "zoning".  Greg Hahn is registered to talk about "planning/land use" with DPS, DPW, the Crime Prevention Advisory Board, the Council, the Department of Code Enforcement, DMD, DPS, the Indianapolis Economic Development Comm., the Indianapolis Economic Development Board of Directors, the Indianapolis Neighborhood Housing Partnership Board, the Metropolitan Development Committee (presumably of the Council), and the Metropolitan Development Commission.

I am hoping that the registration of Ahmed Young is a foolish mistake on somebody's part, and the the ethics policy of Mayor Hogsett does not allow his Director of the Office of Education Innovation to be simultaneously employed as a lobbyist.

To recap, the big money so far is on CCA of Tennessee ($120,000), Angie's List ($71,978), Indy Eleven ($67,410), Xerox Business Services ($54,984), billboard companies ($45,065.98), BC Initiative (BioCrossroads) ($38,217), Election Systems & Software ($19,589.74), and Giant Eagle ($17,344).

Councillor Leroy Robinson Signs Billboard Lobbyist as Campaign Treasurer

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

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

Wait, it gets worse.

The billboard lobbyists even threw him a fundraiser.

Wait, it gets worse. 

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

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

Wait, it gets worse.

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

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

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

Billboard Lobby Donations Create an Appearance of a Conflict of Interest

Just posted on Indiana Forefront...
***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Passage of Prop 364 Give Monopoly To Smoke Detector Company?

Philosophically, how do you feel about a law being enacted that was written by a lobbyist in such a way as to award his client a virtual monopoly on their product?  Well, such a law may come to pass if Prop 364, 2013, is enacted by the Indianapolis-Marion County, City-County Council.

Wednesday night the Public Safety Committee will consider adding a few lines to our Ordinance regarding smoke detectors.  This is the second go-round for the Committee on this proposal; it having been sent back to committee at the urging of Committee Chair, Mary Moriarty Adams due to "new concerns [having] been raised by her colleagues". 

Prop 364 was written by Scott Chin, partner in Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, and registered lobbyist for United Technologies, Corp., parent company to Kidde.  Kidde designs and sells smoke detectors, among other things.  Kidde has thrown some high power at Prop 364.  In addition to Chin, other FBD Partners J. Murray Clark, Frederick (Chip) Garver, Mindy Westrick Brown, and Joseph Smith all registered to lobby the City for United Technologies in 2013 and 2014.  Only Smith registered to lobby for other clients.

The proposal would add the following language to Indianapolis' Ordinances:

If the smoke detector is solely powered by a battery, such battery shall be a non-removable, non-replaceable battery capable of powering the smoke detector for a minimum of 10 years. Smoke detectors and fire alarm devices that are connected to a panel as part of a monitored fire alarm system, or other devices that use a low-power radio frequency wireless communication signal are exempt from the battery requirements of this section.  (emphasis mine)

Kidde was granted US Patent 7,525,445 in 2009, and it would be valid until 2023.  It claims, in part, a battery that by design of the smoke detector, is not removable and not replaceable.

If the Council changed the language to "tamper resistant", other smoke detector manufacturers' products would fit the proposed ordinance.  If it dropped the extended battery life to 6 years, even more would qualify.

In an email to members of the Public Safety Committee, one apartment owner claims that a lawyer for local law firm called and said the manufacturer would provide free smoke detectors to any apartment company that supports Prop 364 and helps get it passed.

Kidde has given IFD free smoke detectors - a practice one hopes is not connected to passage of this ordinance.

Scanning a FEMA report on smoke detector laws in various states, one sees a number of fire safety laws that have been enacted in a goodly number of jurisdictions.

Is hard wiring, especially in new construction, being proposed here?  Nope.

Is the use of photovoltaic smoke detectors being proposed here?  Nope.  (By the way, you might want to watch this NBC News report before you purchase your next one.)

Is there a requirement for a 'hush' button, especially if the detector is installed in a kitchen?  Nope.

All there is in Prop 364 is what the lobbyist put there.

Beyond all this, there are other problems with Prop 364.  For instance, there is no easing into the implementation of this Ordinance. 

On July 1, 2014, precisely, the new law would take effect. 

You would have to replace all of your smoke detectors by then or be in violation.  Given that the cost of these extended life devices is greater than the basic one-year battery type, this can be hundreds of dollars. 

Apartment owners could have significant bills for new smoke detectors - an unplanned for 2014 expense that could be harmful to their business.

Not to mention there is no time for retailers to get the non-compliant brands off their shelves via sales.

The entire concept of an extended life battery is also open to debate.  Just go to your favorite online retailer and scan the reviews.  Certainly, paying more for a smoke detector with a claimed battery life of 10 years and getting only 2 months out of it would motivate you to write a negative review.  Still, there is no study that I could find that compares the claims with real world testing.

I have no objection to trying to improve our fire safety laws.  But, I would prefer changes that begin with those that would make the biggest difference first - like requiring hardwiring, photovoltaic and hush buttons.  Any of these are more important than requiring non-removable, non-replaceable, 10 year battery operated devices (made exclusively by Kidde).

[parts of this blog entry were published earlier today at Indiana ForeFront]

Lobbyists

While the topic of ethics is still of interest, I thought I'd take a look at the list of folks who registered as lobbyists with the City of Indianapolis.

In 2010, 56 individuals signed up - employed by 32 different companies or firms, representing 72 entities.

In 2011, 36 individuals, with 16 different employers, represented 62 entities.

In 2012, the numbers were 44 individuals, 23 employers, represented 66 entities.

As of today, the 2013 year has 19 individuals, employed by 8 companies or firms, represent 27 entities.  The year is young and the budget season has not yet begun, which likely explains the drop from previous years.

It may not surprise you to learn that this year 6 individuals, employed by Ice Miller, represent only one client - the Pacers.  The Democratic power couple, Carl Drummer and Lacy Johnson, are two of those 6.  Any predictions on how the Democrat controlled Council will vote on the CIB  sending even more taxpayer dollars over to the Simons later this year?

The Indianapolis Motor Speedway has but one person shilling for them. 

Curious is the apparent need of some not for profit groups to hire lobbyists, rather than drag their own arses over to City Hall to make their own case.  For instance, this year Frank Short is representing Visit Indy, Indianapolis Downtown Inc., and the Marion County Recorder.  Of course, all three want the flow of tax dollars to continue their way, but why not save some of those tax dollars and speak for yourself?  In previous years Wayne Township and the Town of Fishers also hired lobbyists for one reason or another, to implore some governmental group in Marion County.

Another oddity, is the double duty some are pulling.  Bob Grand, through Barnes & Thornburg, works as a consultant to the Mayor, and simultaneously represents his own lobbying clients.  So, too have B&T lawyers Joe Loftus and Bruce Donaldson pulled double duty in past years.

Jennifer Ping lobbies for Bose Public Affairs Group on behalf of a few clients, among which she lobbies the MDC for AON Consulting.  Ping's husband, Tim Ping, sits on the MDC.  Although I expect he recuses himself when anything related to AON Consulting comes to a vote, wouldn't it all be simpler if someone else at Bose took on that particular client?

Towing companies seem a bit over represented, considering how few entities are actually noted in the lobby registration database.  This year it is Cook's Towing and in previous years it was Zore's.

And those represented seem to do quite well.  Even to someone like me, who has little memory for company names, these names jump out - Buckingham Companies, Comlux, Corrections Corporation of America, Citizens Energy Group, and Eli Lilly.

Not sure what to make of any of this, beyond the thought that it seems like a small number of registered lobbyist and their disclosed clients, compared to those seeking a piece of the taxpayers' $1 Billion Plus City-County budget.

Senator Steele Pulls SB244

Update for those following SB244, which would have granted an exclusion in Indiana lobbying reporting laws to three groups (see yesterday's post for particulars), was pulled from consideration.  Senator Brent Steele (District 44), one of the bills sponsors, announced the action yesterday afternoon.  This is a very good development and I certainly support Senator Steele's decision.

SB 244 - Creating A Run Around Indiana's Lobbying Laws

Indiana law currently requires that lobbyists register and report all gifts made to all Legislators and the Governor.  But, with the ink barely dry, exceptions are being considered by the General Assembly.  Here's how Scott Smith of the Kokomo Tribune frames the situation:

One of the cornerstones of the Indiana General Assembly’s 2010 ethics reform bill was a ban on lobbyist-funded, out-of-state travel for legislators.

As it turns out, the ban isn’t quite an iron-clad rule.

And two years after the bill’s passage, legislators are busy trying to carve out additional exemptions to the rules.

If lobbyists can’t directly pay for a state legislator to go on a junket, they have another option.

By simply paying for membership in a group like the American Legislative Exchange Council, which brings together corporate lobbyists and a host of conservative legislators at conferences around the country, the lobbyists get unfettered access to influential legislators.

But, we get ahead of ourselves.  Let's start at the beginning.  Here is what the Indiana Code currently says about lobbying, in part:

IC 2-7-1-10
"Lobbyist" Sec. 10. (a) "Lobbyist" means any person who:
(1) engages in lobbying; and
(2) in any registration year, receives or expends an aggregate of at least five hundred dollars ($500) in compensation or expenditures reportable under this article for lobbying, whether the compensation or expenditure is solely for lobbying or the lobbying is incidental to that individual's regular employment.
(b) The following are not considered lobbyists:
(1) A public employee or public official.
(2) The National Conference of State Legislatures.
(3) The National Conference of Insurance Legislators.
(4) The American Legislative Exchange Council.
(5) Women in Government.
(6) The Council of State Governments.
(7) The National Black Caucus of State Legislators.
(8) Any other national organization established for the education and support of legislative leadership, legislators, legislative staff, or related government employees.

It must be that the activities of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the National Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses, and the State Agriculture and Rural Leaders Association, are not clearly ones of education and thus exempt by # 8 of this definition.  These three groups are the subject of individualized legislation in the form of Senate Bill 244, which would codify their unique exemption status by naming them as groups who are not considered lobbyists.

So, who are these groups, how do they interact with our Legislators in particular, and where does the money come to support those interactions.

The CSF appears to be the parent of the NASC.  Their combined website is: http://www.sportsmenslink.org/.   

CSF has several events each year, among which is an Annual Banquet and Auction fundraiser.  This was last held on September 14 with individual tickets going for $1000 or a table of 8 for $6000, but with two seats reserved for VIPS.  Got to wonder who the VIPs were and who paid for the seats.  That information I could not find.

But, they do list their 'partners' on the CSF website.  These include such notable hunting and fishing sportsmen's groups as Alergen, Bayer Cropscience, CONSOL Energy, Oracle, Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, BP America, Inc., Chief Oil & Gas, The Coca-Cola Company, Lockheed Martin, Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur, United States Steel Corporation, Aflac, Capitol Hill Consulting Group, National Mining Association, and NASCAR.

The NASC lists as its 'partners', among others, Comcast, Shell Oil, Aflac, Daimler, Exxon Mobile, Rubber Manufacturer's Association, and America's Natural Gas Alliance.

The website also notes legislation they'd like to see enacted.  Here's just one and how they describe it (emphasis mine):

Voter Registration
Introduction
Encouraging sportsmen’s involvement in the political process is an important method for preserving our outdoor heritage. Increased participation helps ensure that the sportsmen’s voice is heard, particularly though the ballot box, which also strengthens the sportsmen’s ability to collectively defeat anti-sportsmen groups. Facilitating voter registration for sportsmen at the time they purchase their sportsmen’s licenses is one way to increase the number of registered sportsmen voters.

Language
By incorporating the views of our partners and other state legislators who have passed this legislation, we present the following language:
“Each application to obtain a resident hunting, fishing, or trapping license issued by the (Department of Natural Resources/State Wildlife Agency) and made by an applicant who is within six months of such applicant's eighteenth birthday or older shall also serve as an application for voter registration unless the applicant declines to register to vote through specific declination or by failing to sign the voter registration application. (The Board of Natural Resources/State Wildlife Agency) and the Secretary of State shall agree upon and design such procedures and forms as will be necessary to comply with this Code section, including without limitation procedures applicable to processing of applications received by persons approved as license agents for the (Department of Natural Resources).”

Points of Interest
It is the duty of each caucus leadership team to determine the best means of action in your respective state and modify the above language as necessary.

History
The issue was introduced at the inaugural NASC Annual Meeting in 2004 by a Georgia legislator and was issued as a NASC issue brief during the 2005 legislative session. Sportsmen’s caucuses in Florida and Georgia have passed similar legislation and attempts have been made in at least six other states.

Just in case you were ready to buy into their role in education of Legislators, let me also link you to two places where CSF posted a job opening this past year for a fundraiser.  In one place they described THEMSELVES as an "Advocacy, Environment" organization.  In the other they say :

The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, which coordinates interaction and idea exchange among federal and state legislators, sportsmen's groups, industry, and outdoor media to advance a pro-sportsmen's agenda in the U.S. Congress and state capitals, is seeking an Outreach Coordinator.

Clearly, the CSF and NASC are pushing for specific legislation and thus do not deserve an exemption from Indiana's lobbying laws.  They can also serve as a means to give their 'partners', current and future, a run around our laws by giving money to these groups and gaining face time with Legislators through the groups' events.

The State Agriculture and Rural Leaders group also has interesting 'partners' and educational methods.  The SARL website is http://www.agandruralleaders.org/.  They have an Annual Summit where invited Legislators listen to briefings and then adopt Resolutions.  The Summit was just held on January 6-8 in our Nation's Capital. 

Summit 'Partners' include, among others, BASF, Biotechnology Industry Organizations, International Associations of Fairs and Expositions, Kraft Foods, Land-O-Lakes, and Wine America.  At least their partners are not so far afield from the organization's base as those of the CSF and NASC.

The topic of the first Plenary Session was "How state/provincial policy makers can support our producers and communities".  During the Summit, the gathering adopted 10 Resolutions.  Here is one, just selected solely on the basis of its brevity (emphasis in last paragraph is mine):

2012 Legislative Agriculture Chairs Summit  

Resolution on Country of Origin Labeling

Whereas, the State Ag and Rural Leaders, (SARL) is comprised of agriculture and rural leaders of state and provincial legislative bodies from the US and Canada; and

Whereas,the U.S. Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) legislation has been a source of trade dispute between the U.S. and Canada; and

Whereas, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled that the means by which COOL was implemented is not consistent with U.S. trade obligations; and

Whereas, the strength of the U.S.-Canadian trade relationship has created jobs and financial growth in both countries; and now therefore be it

Resolved, that SARL encourages the U.S. to waive an appeal of the WTO Dispute Panel’s ruling on COOL and further encourages the United States Congress to make a legislative amendment that would bring COOL into conformity with the U.S. WTO obligations without hindering the ability of the United States to continue to implement COOL for informed consumer decisions.

That sounds more like suggesting specific legislation than education.  The very fact that Legislators attending the Annual Summit are the ones actively adopting the Resolutions is a bit much.  Again, this group should not be exempt from our lobbying laws.

As far as news from the media on SB244, I have only found previously cited article by Scott Smith of the Kokomo Tribune.

I had not heard of this bill until Saturday, when Julia Vaughn, Policy Director of Common Cause of Indiana, was a Guest Presenter at McANA meeting.  That meeting is being televised by Channel 16, and you can access it from their archives.  Scroll down to 'other meetings' and select Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations (Jan 21, 2012).

Vaughn provided me with this statement:

This bill would allow these groups, who appear to be funded by a diverse treasure trove of corporate and trade industry organizations, to fly Indiana legislators out-of-state for "educational" events where they will be greeted by the same lobbyists who are prohibited from funding out-of-state travel for legislators.  These exempted groups could provide a convenient way for big money special interests to avoid having to disclose their lobbying expenditures and get around the ban on lobbyist paid out of state travel.  It's a bill that weakens transparency and citizens should call their Senators ASAP and ask them to vote NO.        

You can find your Senator and their contact information here.

Lets not let them weaken the lobbying rules by, knowingly or not, putting in place a great runaround of the intent of our recently enacted lobbyist activities and gifting laws.

Backroom Budgeteering for Telecom & Video Services Agency -- Part 5 of Series

The actions surrounding the budget for the Telecom & Video Services Agency (TVSA) are actually far more important than the budget numbers themselves.


TVSA is the agency that is responsible for the two government channels, educational TV, and auditing the Cable TV providers' numbers to be sure they actually send the full amount of franchise fees owed to the City. The franchise fees are at the core of the real issues surrounding TVSA's budget. For 2010 they are expecting these fees to bring $8.25M to the City-County coffers. Some think we should be getting tens of millions more.

TVSA's budget weighs in at only $472,373 for 2010; decreased by $154,000 from 2009, which results in cutting the executive director and his assistant's jobs. The explanation offered was that state law changed a few years ago, pulling much of the responsibility of Cable TV provider oversight to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, even though that organization has no real oversight duties assigned to it. In effect, the State Legislature replaced excellent local oversight with basically no State oversight of the Cable TV industry. Guess the lobbyists' stories were too compelling to ignore. But, the reduction in duties here in Indy's TVSA were what was said to result in the decision to cut the Executive Director position in 2010.

The alternate explanation is far more troubling and that is : Rick Maultra, the man who holds the soon to be cut Executive Director position, has been pushing for AT&T to fork over their share of cable franchise fees which he estimates could be in the $10s of millions of dollars at this point. Joe Loftus, who advises Mayor Ballard as his Counsel, is also a lobbyist for AT&T. Connecting the dots was going on for a full month with primarily Republican Councillors decrying the 'accusations going around' and the lone Libertarian and primarily Democrat Councillors decrying the role that politics was playing in the TVSA budget. None of them spoke directly on the matter while the cameras were rolling.

Paul Ogden has done a masterful job of laying it all out on his blog - see here and here. Let me just say that more important than the $154,000 cut from TVSA's budget is the question of whether Mayor Greg Ballard allowed anyone to work through his budget process to secure an advantage for a private company at the expense of the taxpayers of Indianapolis.

During the Administration & Finance Committee's review of the TVSA's budget, Joanne Sanders moved that the TVSA's budget be supplemented with an additional $154,000 to be taken from newly added money given to the City by the Water Company -- a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) amounting to $1,390,571 for 2009 amd $721,695 for 2010. The motion passed when Councillor Malone (R) joined Democrats Sanders, Nytes, and Batemen in voting aye. Nay votes came from Republicans Pfisterer, Vaughn, and Day.

At the full Council meeting, the TVSA budget was amended with a motion by Councillor Bob Lutz (R), to pull the $154,000 back out from the budget. It passed with a vote of 19-8. The 8 voting against the amendment were Cain (R), Coleman (L), Gray (D), Malone (R), Mansfield (D), Nytes (D), Oliver (D), and Sanders (D). Councillors Minton-McNeill and Smith were absent all night. The remainder of the Councillors voted in favor of the amendment -- thus removing Maultra from his job, letting AT&T provide cable TV without paying the fees other cable companies must pay, and letting additional right of way fees, perhaps amounting to tens of millions of dollars, to slide from Indy's grasp.

I think it important to reiterate the real problematic issue presented by the TVSA budget story. Did Mayor Greg Ballard allow his budget process and key Department heads to be used to secure a benefit for a private company to the detriment of the taxpayers of Indianapolis?

Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council Meets Tonight

The City-County Council meets tonight, 7:00 pm, Public Assembly Room of the City-County Building.

The agenda looks routine to my eye, except for Proposal 142, 2009. That Proposed Ordinance, if enacted, would require lobbyists to register with the City Controller within 15 days of the start of lobbying activity, and annually thereafter. It seems the specifics that would be required for disclosure would include -- lobbyists name, etc, employer, subject(s) of lobbying activity, how much money they are making from their client(s), and the agencies or officials with whom the lobbyist met.

Required information in the annual registration materials would include, among other things,

A description and the costs of any item of entertainment, food, drink, honoraria, travel expenses, and registration fees given or provided to an official, appointee, or employee; however, the following items need not be listed:
a. Items with a face value of less than twenty-five dollars ($25);
and
b. Items that are exempt under subdivisions (2) through (11) of Section 293-201(b);

I tried to look up the exceptions in (b), but the link to the City code comes up with a mal-functioning website.

This amended proposal was voted on at the March 31 meeting of the Council Rules & Public Policy Committee with a do pass recommendation that ran along party lines. Minutes for that meeting and the previous one when the Proposal was also discussed show no particular references to why there is opposition.

If enacted, this proposed ordinance would go into effect on January 1, 2010.

Among the Proposals to be introduced tonight are two that stand out.

First is the appropriation of over $514,308 in grant money from a variety of sources, to the Parks Department to pay for, among other things, an after-school program (Prop 116, 2009). If you recall, the Parks budget hearing last year was fairly contentious over the lack of funds for the continuation of the popular and successful after-school programs under the previous Director of Parks. This Proposal will be referred to the Parks Committee, which next meets this Thursday, April 16, beginning at 5:00 pm in Room 260 of the City-County Building.

Second is a change in the City Code which would exclude any federal stimulus money from requirements that all moneys be appropriated by the City-County Council before they can be spent by an agency for which the Council is the fiscal body (Prop 136, 2009). This Proposal will be referred to the Rules Committee, which next meets on Tuesday, April 21, beginning at 5:30 pm in Room 260 of the City-County Building.