City Loses No Time Asking for Bids On Electric Fleet

Today's paper reports that just yesterday, Mayor Ballard and Council President Lewis signed an agreement over the new electric car fleet.  The 212 electric cars already delivered by Vision Fleet would continue to be subject to maintenance through Vision Fleet, but the remaining 213 would be put out for public bid.

Yesterday afternoon, the Purchasing Division put out RFP14-DPW-598

Four (4) Year Term Contract to provide an Electric Vehicle Program to the Consolidated City of Indianapolis - Marion County, through the Indianapolis Department of Public Works, Fleet Services Division

They wasted no time.

I have to ask, though, where is the public discussion on how many electric cars we should have, what attributes those cars should have and to whom they should be assigned?

Most certainly, the $45,000 lifetime cost per car was outrageous, and I am quite glad that the Council took a hard stance against the deal, if for that reason only.   Equally outrageous was the way the Mayor's office yet again circumvented the proper procedures - whether simply to avoid scrutiny by the Council and the public or to assure the award went to the favored company, or both.  Both of these have been stopped in their tracks, which is half a loaf.

Council discussions over filing the lawsuit against the Mayor have divulged other issues including problems with charging the cars overnight in the homes of those assigned the cars and lack of truck space for heavy arms that police officers want to carry.  The last one I still don't get - the cars were supposed to be assigned to administrators who don't really need a peppy car to get them to the scene.  So, whether more than this category of officers got the electric cars or these administrators just want to carry assault rifles, I don't know.

For me, it is not just about the Mayor's office circumventing proper procedures, and probably the law, its about them doing it so often that Vision Fleet has simply become a poster child for "The Ballard Way".  It is shocking to see how Ballard's time in office has devolved from him being a champion of transparency to being a manager of insider deals kept from the light of day, surreptitiously funded with moneys not appropriated for the purpose, and protected by a 'just say no' attitude to releasing public documents.

In any case, if you are interested in leasing the City 213 electric cars and taking care of them for 4 years, get your proposal in by October 2.

CIB Meeting - Pacers Agenda Item

Here is the 18 minute clip from WCTY's broadcast of yesterday's CIB meeting - the portion where the Pacers deal for use of CIB land for 40 years (with an option for a 10 year extension) was 'discussed'.

The vote was whether or not to pursue negotiations for an agreement, based on the general points to which the Board had access. Presumably it is the same list of points published in Mary Milz' peice yesterday on WTHR.

Most questions were asked by City-County Council President, Maggie Lewis, who sits on the CIB due to her position on the Council.  She asked great questions, but most were referred to a Pacers press conference supposedly being held in the next few days - so left unanswered.

Please note, that the Board President, Earl Goode, referred to "individual briefings" on the particulars.

It is too bad that the public does not have access to what the general terms will be, as there is nothing posted on the CIB website, nor was there any presentation to inform the public.

Maggie Lewis' Curious Campaign Finance Reports

I was scanning recent campaign finance reports of some of our City-County Councillors as part of my background for the Kidde smoke detector blog entry ("Will Passage of Prop 364 Give Monopoly to Smoke Detector Company?").  I didn't see any contributions from Kidde or its parent company in the few reports I reviewed.

However, I did see a goodly number of curious expenses reported by the "Maggie Lewis Campaign" for 2013.  For those who don't know, Lewis serves as the President of the Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council.  These expenses were curious for two reasons.  One, they were paid directly to Maggie Lewis with no reason for the expenditure noted.  Two, they were always whole dollar figures.  A person might expect to see 'reimbursement for expenses' and/or an indication of 'so many' dollars and 'so many' cents being paid, implying the expense was backed by receipts.

These 13 direct payments to Lewis totaled $5906 in 2013.

In 2012, Lewis' campaign finance report noted two direct payments and eight payments with "payment of debt" noted.  There was no mention of any debts owed by the campaign to Lewis in any previous finance report.  There wasn't even any contribution by Lewis to her own campaign noted in any finance report.  The 2012 direct payments totaled $200.  The "payment of debt" payments to Lewis totaled $2759.

Reaching back to 2011 we finally get to non-whole numbers as well as notes explaining the payments to Lewis.  Coded for advertising, a payment of $264.01 was reported.  Another payment to Lewis for $353.58 had the note, 'food reimbursement for fundraiser'.  Reported for later in 2011, though, were two payments to Lewis totaling $1000, for which no reason for the expense was provided.

Campaign finance reports for 2009 and 2010 show no payments to Lewis.

So, over three years, the curious payments to Lewis by her campaign were $1000, $2959, and $5906, coming to a grand total of $9865 even, no cents.

Still, I don't pour over campaign finance reports much; this might be something usual.  So, I went through the 2013 annual reports from all sitting Councillors.  Two, Shreve and Gooden, were appointed during the term and have yet to file campaign finance reports.  If a Councillor's 2013 report showed no expenses whatsoever, I went through that Councillor's reports until I reached a year during which there were itemized expenses.  For two Councillors, Talley and Brown, I looked at their campaign reports for 2013 for their runs as Trustees, as well.

The vast majority of Councillors didn't pay themselves a penny in the reports I reviewed.  There were four exceptions besides Lewis. Minority Leader McQuillen, whose campaign in 2013 paid him $2961.80, all noted as 'reimburse expenses' and all noted with dollars and cents. The Talley For Trustee campaign reported a single $461.83 payment to Talley and noted 'reimburse campaign expenses'.  Hunter's campaign reported two payments totaling $170 to a Keri Hunter, with explanations noted, and a $100 direct payment to Hunter himself, with no explanation.  Cain's campaign paid her $30 in 2013 with no explanation.

So, of 29 Councillors, two have no campaign finance reports filed, 22 have no payment to themselves in the most recent filing that includes itemized expenses, two have payments with explanations, and two have one payment to themselves with no explanation, and then there is Lewis.

Lewis' campaign payments to herself are curious, and stand out among her colleagues, especially in their amount.

Principles Matter - But, Evidently, That's Negotiable

Some power brokers in the Republican Party and some power brokers in the Democratic Party only care about how much money flows their way.  To them, there is no 'enough'. 

There is no 'enough' just because your parks aren't kept up.  There is no 'enough' just because there are too few police and the City can't afford to give them contractual raises.  There is no 'enough' just because all the sellable public assets have been sold. There is no 'enough' just because good public servants are being laid off so that well-connected organizations can get more lucrative contracts to do their jobs - and poorly at that.

There is no 'enough' as long as the City can cash in future generations' welfare for more dollars today.   There is no 'enough' as long as there are more square miles that can be turned into TIF slush funds.  There is no 'enough' as long as the City can gain, even if that gain causes an equal loss to Township Schools.  There is certainly no 'enough' as long as taxes can be raised.

Jon Murray, IndyStar city hall beat reporter, wrote an article that was posted last night online and delivered to subscribers on paper today, that clearly shows how little residents and taxpayers mean to some of those elected to serve the public - not elected to serve themselves and their money backers.  Paul Ogden, over at OgdenOnPolitics, commented on the story last night.

Murray reports on negotiations between Council President Maggie Lewis and Mayor Ryan Vaughn.  These negotiations are about eliminating the local homestead credit and expanding the old IPD taxing district.  He says of those two 'tax changes':

The combined upshot would include a tax cut for central parts of the city, higher taxes for outlying areas and a hit to township school districts’budgets. 

Council President Maggie Lewis, a Democrat, said the Republican administration was holding firm on the tax proposals but has been open to discussing options that include tapping into utility sale proceeds and unused money from tax-increment financing districts.

That could soften the blow of the tax changes by paying for council Democrats’ priorities, she said.

Its not about softening the blow to taxpayers.  The power brokers behind Lewis want those taxes raised - the more the merrier.  Schools be damned, taxpayers be damned - keep the tide of cash flowing ever greater.  Lewis is actually trying to find MORE money to spend to 'justify' voting for raising taxes.  If she cared about the public interest, she'd be negotiating to supplant some or all of the tax hikes with money in the $80 million 'fiscal stabilization fund' that was created with the utility sales money.  But, no, its all about ever more money for the power brokers and the well connected developers and the campaign contributors.

Lewis and Vaughn are just trying to soften the blowback on Councillors who vote for these tax increases.  They are trying to come up with a one-year token infusion of extra money into the budget to somehow bedazzle the public with a forever-year increase in taxes and hit to Township Schools' budgets.

Lewis' branch of the County Democrat Party is as corrupt as Vaughn's branch of the County Republican Party.  And all they want is more access to your purse so their 'friends' can broker more bond sales, lobby for more deals for their clients, land more contracts, and turn their campaign contributions into more tenfold taxpayer handouts.

There still are Councillors who act on principle and for the public good - a couple, all of the time - some, only 'negotiating' that principle away from time to time.   It is up to these Councillors how the City will move forward.

Why the D's Should Be Nicer to Brian Mahern

My friend Jon Easter penned a thoughtful piece over at Indy Democrat Blog, about the coup attempt by Councillor Brian Mahern at Monday night's Council meeting.  Lot's of comments.

Mahern began this term as Vice President of the Council.  I understand he ruffled feathers and some Councillors felt he did not play well with others.  What he did do, is what he has consistently done.  Stood on the side of good public policy and government expenditures that benefit the public.  He is a true believer and the real deal.

It was clear to all that he was looking to run for Mayor.  However, the powers that be could not continue to ride the gravy train if that were to occur.  The usual suspects didn't contribute to his coffers because it would not get them the coziness they can buy with contributions to other politicians of both parties.  He stopped running.

The Council leadership and their power brokers didn't like all that talk about being sensible with TIFs - nor, for completeness sake, do the Council minority leadership and their power brokers.

The Ds stripped Mahern of his Chairmanship, of his VP position - and just last week they stripped him of even serving on the coveted Rules committee. 

I would not be surprised to have confirmed, that once the State removed At-Large positions from the Council, the County Party decided that At-Large Councillor, Zach Adamson, would win the Slating contest for the local district held by Mahern - such is the integrity of the slating process and all.

But, the Ds should worry about continuing their harsh ways.  Mahern could do an Evans and switch party allegiance to the Rs.  What would he lose?

That one seat would swing the Council to an R majority.

They could cut millions from all Democrat-elected County office budgets - with abandon.

They could re-re-redistrict the Council seats and end the chance that the State Supreme Court would redraw the maps as they did a decade ago.

They could eliminate the homestead credit.  They could redraw the old IPD tax district.  They could increase the COIT and PST income tax rates to max.

They could reassign all members of standing committees of the Council, and taking the D lead, assign a lone D to each one.  Just for fun, they could assign Mahern to all the really nifty committees.

They could create as many new TIF districts in Republican held Council districts as they wanted.  They could continue to snub D Councillors and still not invite them to ribbon cutting ceremonies when key projects are commenced in a Democrat held Council district.

The Mayor's office could go back to ignoring them.

My god, they could even switch the side of the room they sit in.

Clearly, Maggie Lewis would not remain Council President if the Rs gained the majority.

Yup.  A little strategy might be a good thing here. 

Louis Mahern Makes Compelling Case for Full Disclosure of Gifts to Ballard and Lewis

In this week's IBJ, guest columnist Louis Mahern makes a remarkably compelling case for Mayor Greg Ballard and City-County Council President Maggie Lewis, to disclose all of the gifts they get.

If the following statement doesn't make you sit back, nothing will:

Since 2008, Ballard has received nearly $1 million in free sports tickets. Shouldn’t he have to report somewhere that he received those tickets as well as their value?

Wow !  I knew he got tickets, but that's a load of tickets.  If Mahern's figures are over 5 1/2 years, that's $181,000 a year in TICKETS.  A lot of feting can be done with that budget, and none of it has to come from Ballard's campaign coffers.

Still the public has a right to know this and it should have to be disclosed on Ballard's annual "Statement of Economic Interest" form (aka 'conflict of interest' form).  Here is the meaty part of his disclosure from 2013 gifts:

 

 

 

Ballard mentions that he attends sporting events and that the City often gets tickets to other events from the CIB.  He does not actually disclose the number and value of the tickets he gets.  Of course, since Ballard already has a suite at the BLF, why accept 2 Pacers tickets worth $1824 from IPL? Gary Welsh, over at Advance Indiana, has already exposed the huge undervalue of the Super Bowl ring, which Welsh shows is really more like $5000.

 

Back to Mahern's IBJ column - Not only were the tickets not fully disclosed, but memberships in country clubs, and his frequent, free, foreign jaunts are also not disclosed to the public.  You will recall how Ballard says his administration is transparent.  Well, here's a great example of how opaque they really are.

 

Mahern moves on to Lewis' gifts of tickets from the CIB and her employer's (Dove Recovery House - for which she serves as Executive Director) dependence upon annual grants from the City's Crime Prevention Grants.  The Councillor's 2013 Ethics forms are online as a single, lengthy, pdf.  Lewis' are pages 89-93.  She does disclose her employer's name and nowhere does the form require disclosure of her employer's City funding.  The tickets to sporting and other events are not mentioned by Lewis.  A scan of Councillor's forms show that some do disclose tickets and others do not.  But, we know for a fact that Lewis does get tickets from at least the CIB.  In answer to question 6 of the form:

Except for Campaign Donations, Subject to IC 3-9-2 and Reported in Accordance With Law or Gifts From Persons Including Family Members With Whom You Have an On-Going Social Relationship Not Related to Service on the Council Which are not Subject to Reporting on this Form, Did You Receive any Gifts, or Other Items, Valued Over $100, or in the Aggregate Over $250, in the Prior Year From any Person or Firm that Does Business With or Seeks to do Business with the City or County or Which Seeks to Influence Council Action?

she simply checkmarks "No".



The public has a right to know how much our elected officials get in gifts from admirers and influence seekers.  In fact, I'd like to see Departments heads also have to disclose gifts.  The Council and the Mayor like to tell the public that they have strong disclosure and ethics statutes, but Mahern has shown us that they either have weak statutes or they ignore what they have at will.

 

As Mahern concludes:

Make no mistake: Ballard and Lewis are powerful officials whose friendship the Colts, Pacers and private contractors crave.

What are the gifts? What is their value? Who are the donors? Is it so hard?

Exactly.



Council Democrats File Suit Over Redistricting Maps

This afternoon, City-County Council Democratic leadership file a lawsuit over the Council district maps.  Here is their press release:

 INDIANAPOLIS - This afternoon, President Maggie A. Lewis, Vice-President John Barth and Majority Leader Vern Brown, filed a lawsuit in the Marion Superior Court against the Marion County Election Board citing violations of Indiana law regarding mandatory redistricting.  

"State law requires redistricting during the second year after new census data has been reported. The maps enacted by the lame-duck council in December 2011 violate this requirement.  Those maps also made drastic and illogical changes to the current districts for purely partisan reasons,” stated Councillor Lewis.  “This council passed maps that made only minimal changes to the current districts, but the Mayor vetoed them. This means there are no legally valid maps in place, so we are asking the court to draw the district maps, as it did in 2003." 

"The redistricting maps we have created correlate directly with the new data and offer a balanced representation of the various constituencies we represent.   The maps we have drawn are balanced, compact, honor natural boundaries, and areas of interest," she added.

Results From Last Night's Council Meeting

Others reported much of this last night - see Gary Welsh over at Advance Indiana's first and second post, and Jon Murray at the IndyStar.

First, Prop 54, which was to be both introduced and heard last night, was instead sent to committee for a hearing, as is the usual procedure.  It has been assigned to the Rules committee, which will take the matter up at its March 12 meeting.  Many thanks to Council Clerk, NaTrina Debow for that information.  Prop 54 seeks to split the proceeds from the two new tax hikes between the CIB and the City (links to prop 54 and exhibit of the agreement between the CIB and OFM).

Second, Prop 48, which seeks to change the organization responsible for administering the Crime Prevention grants from the Indy Parks Foundation to the Central Indiana Community Foundation, was pulled from the agenda entirely.  Both this blog and Advance Indiana commented on the conflict of interest resulting from Council President Maggie Lewis being both the sponsor of this proposal and Executive Director of a grant recipient organization.

Third, Prop 33, which seeks to apply $3 million from RebuildIndy funds toward infrastructure improvements in the Meadows/Avondale area with the ultimate goal of enticing a grocery store to locate in the area, failed to muster a majority vote either for or against.  Democrat Vop Osili and Republican Ben Hunter were absent from the meeting.  The vote was 14 for and 13 against Prop 33.  Democrat Angela Mansfield joined all the Republican Councillors in opposing the proposal.  Since there was no majority, the Proposal is still alive and can be voted upon again at the next full Council meeting, February 25.

Council President Maggie Lewis - Conflict of Interest

Indianapolis City-County Council President, Maggie Lewis, has a conflict of interest in Prop 48.  The only question is, is that a conflict real or an appearance?

Prop 48 will be introduced at tonight's Council meeting.  She is the sole sponsor of this proposal that seeks to switch the Crime Prevention granting authority from the Indianapolis Parks Foundation to the Central Indiana Community Foundation (CICF).  Gary Welsh over at Advance Indiana remarked on this the other day.

The conflict arises because Lewis is the Executive Director of Dove Recovery House, a facility that has received Crime Prevention grants the past 3 years and which lists "Indianapolis Foundation (a CICF Affiliate)" as a 'Partner'.  When you visit the CICF website you find that CICF is a partnership between Indianapolis Foundation and the Legacy Fund. 

Dove Recovery House was awarded a $75,000 Crime Prevention grant in 2010, a $100,000 Crime Prevention grant in 2011, and a $160,360 Crime Prevention grant in 2012.  The 2012 grant was the highest amount awarded to any organization that year.

From tax returns posted on GuideStar.org, it appears that Lewis became affiliated with Dove Recovery House some time in 2010.  No 2011 tax return is yet available on this site, and the previous years tax returns do not mention Lewis in any capacity.  For 2010, Lewis is named as the person who has the organization's books.  Unfortunately, the page that would list the names of Board Members and significant employees (like executive director), is missing, and the expenses are not itemized.  According to the summary page of that tax return total funding grew from $54,885 the previous year to $120,759 in 2010, largely as a result of the increase in grant funding from $16,690 to $68,910.  Meanwhile, aggregate salaries grew from $1,378 to $76,574.

It would seem that the Crime Prevention grant allowed salaries to be offered by Dove Recovery House, and likely, Lewis was one of those salaried employees.

The Dove Recovery House website lists 7 employees and 13 'Partners'; the latter of which are likely funders or providers of in-kind donations.  Again, "Indianapolis Foundation (a CICF Affiliate)" is one of those listed under 'Partners'.

Whereas the Crime Prevention grants seem to have offered the extra cash to Dove Recovery House to reinstate salaries, thereby directly benefiting Lewis, would seem to be conflict enough for Lewis to have found someone else to sponsor Prop 48.  But given the relationship between CICF and one of Dove Recovery House's 'Partners', it is additionally troubling and could easily call into question the impartiality of CICF, should Dove Recovery House again apply for a grant.

As I stated at the beginning, this is either the appearance of a conflict of interest on President Lewis' part, or a real conflict of interest.  In either case, she should step aside from Prop 48.

Council ReIntroduces Mayors' Budget Cuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CIB to Sign One Year Deal With Pacers

This press release came from Council President, Maggie Lewis:

Indianapolis City-County Council President Maggie A. Lewis

Media Response about CIB Vote to Extend Pacers Agreement

December 12, 2012

 

 

"Extending the Pacers agreement at this time allows us the opportunity to focus on the pressing issues at hand which is city governance.  Issues such as public safety are a priority for us right now.  Approving the agreement with the Pacers moves this off of our list and allows us to place all of our emphasis on matters that are pressing to our constituencies and will keep moving Indianapolis forward."

 

This just saves the CIB the embarrassment of begging for more tax revenue at the same time they are flush enough to hand millions more of public money to the Simons.  If they can afford an extra $10 million right now, then they should pay up on the PILOT and turn down any tax increases.  Enough is enough.

 

Could See This One Coming for Years Now

Anyone who remembers that the CIB bailout from a few years ago contained two delayed opportunities to increase taxes, knew those two taxes would be on the table.  Will someone please explain to me why we go through this charade of 'well, maybe we won't need the money'.  The city mothers and fathers never let a chance to raise taxes fall to the wayside.

Today's Indy Star holds the 'revelation' that there is intense consideration by the CIB and Mayor Vaughn and Council President Lewis, to raise the admissions tax by an additional 4% and the car rental tax by an additional 2%.  Reporter Jon Murray has a great article, and one that has a host of information in it.  Last night fellow blogger Paul Ogden commented on it over at Ogden On Politics.  This morning, Gary Welsh adds his thoughts on Advance Indiana.

The additional taxes could raise about $7 million in additional funds to the CIB each year.  The CIB was funnelling $10 million a year, $8 million of which came from property taxes through the Consolidated Downtown TIF, for the past three years.  They are now in 'negotiations' to hand over even more cash to the Pacers.  Since they continue to receive the $8 million from property taxes, an additional $7 million might leave a $5 million 'surplus' (after what I assume will be a 'negotiated' deal to continue the $10 million extra funding to the poor Pacers).

But wait - there is a new twist.  After cutting the Council budget off at the knees because the Democrats placed a $15 million PILOT obligation on to the CIB, Mayor Vaughn is apparently interested in syphoning off some of the CIB's new tax revenue for the City.  The shell game is such that the City would ask the CIB to pay for the public safety services it receives from the City; services that are now provided free of charge.  So, the City can get a new stream of tax revenue by raising taxes for the CIB.  Since the super bowl supposedly cost $4 million in public safety, this new shell game could not possibly cover the true cost of services provided to CIB-run facilities throughout downtown.

While Mayor Vaughn refused to fund recruit classes for IMPD and IFD and says the city budget must be lean, he continues to foist more TIFs on the taxpayers, push for even more corporate handouts of tax dollars, and craft ever greater sweetheart deals with multi-millionaire sports team owners.  Priorities in this City are out of whack.  Our City government has become hardly much more than an extension of the Chamber of Commerce.

Council Republicans - Its Obvious Now, They'll Never Stand Up To Vaughn

Mayor Ryan Vaughn has a bullying problem - and his cohorts on the Council have not taken him on, even when it means they cannot fulfill the job they were elected to do because of his vindictive vetoes of the Council-passed budget.

Much like a wife beater who blames their battered spouse, claiming he just wanted to 'have a conversation', Vaughn has lashed out at the Democrats, crippling the Council budget and that of every other duly elected Democrat in County government, but denying any responsibility for his outlandish, brutish actions.  According to his enablers, he was forced to do it because the Democrats would not talk with him and all he wants to do is 'have a conversation'.

The Republicans voted in lockstep on each and every vote last night to override Vaughn's vetoes of the budget (Councillors Scales, Gooden, and Freeman were absent).  If there were any time they should have stood up to Vaughn, it surely was when the vote was to override his veto of the Council's entire character 3 budget.  That is their budget.  I now have to give up hope that the Council will ever be more than an appendage of whoever is Mayor, not the independent body we should have.

Let's look at all the alternatives Vaughn had at his disposal.

1) Do nothing except use his soap box to cast derision upon the Democrat led Council.  He and his PR firm have been successful in getting the editorial writers at the Star and IBJ to denounce the Council's efforts to be circumspect and responsible in passing his TIF districts.  He has been successful in his behind the scenes blackmail and threats and pretending to share power with the greedy and ambitious.  But, that was not enough.  The Council had the audacity to disobey Vaughn.  They wanted a recruit class for IMPD and IFD - and they found a way to fund it.  They did not want to do as they were told and rejected the elimination of the homestead credit - a credit that the Republican controlled Council chose to fund with COIT money just three years ago, after the property tax caps were in full effect.  No, this was not an option for someone who will not be disobeyed.

2) Send down only the commentary on the $15 M PILOT that the Council required of the CIB.  This statement said that if the money were ever actually collected, Vaughn would veto any attempt to spend the funds.  This totally blocks the purpose of the PILOT, yet still leaves the door open for cooperation in the future.  Such a move would be enough if the aim were to have a balanced budget that worked for everyone in 2013.  That, however, was never the aim.

3) Send down the commentary on the PILOT and cut the Council budget by $652,654 in character 3.  The point in vetoing the Council budget is to keep the Council from introducing its own Council District maps and litigating those maps in court.  That amounts to $100,000.  That may be less than the raises Vaughn and his buddies on the 25th floor got, but it represents independent thinking and that shall not be tolerated in a Vaughn administration.  Gutting the ability of the Council to pay the rent, pay the light bill, hire attorneys or their CFO, or to even pay to put public notices in the paper as required by law will cripple the ability of duly elected officials, Republican and Democrat alike, to do their job.  President Maggie Lewis notes in a letter to constituents that this veto is "political bullying at work, not leadership".

4) None of these options being enough, Vaughn's next step would be to add the veto of the use of the money in the County General Fund for any County agency.  This is the big one - $31.8 million.  It cannot be said often enough that this is the part of the budget left untouched by the Council and it was pretty much what the introduced budget included.  At this point, logic left the building.  This is shear and naked vindictiveness.  Not that long ago, the County was under court order to bring its housing of inmates into line with human dignity.  Public safety is not just the cops on the streets, its the jail and the courts as well.  Job one in the Vaughn administration is not public safety, job one is not getting contradicted by the Council - and making sure they feel the pain if they get out of line.  Vaughn was a total coward when it came to cutting off the funding for the County agencies.  He is letting the DLGF decide exactly where those cuts will fall, instead of making those choices as part of his veto package.

5) And still - with the pain pushed to every corner of County government except those departments controlled by the Mayor's office - and still, this was not enough.  This last step was surely the most illuminating.  The Council had the temerity to create a subfund in the city's general fund that could only be used for police and fire recruiting and training. It was empty, but could be filled with any source of funds, including those from the $15 M CIB PILOT.  This fund caused no harm.  It was empty.  It would disappear without a fuss on December 31, 2013.  The existence of this fund, though, was more than Vaughn could stand.  It reeked of disobedience.  It had to go.

Vaughn is no longer an elected official, unlike the Councillors.  It is disheartening that those Councillors on the Republican side of the aisle would not tell Vaughn he had gone too far this time.  They enable the bully every time they acquiesce to his nasty machinations.

Instead they repeated all the falsehoods Vaughn is now trying to hide behind. 

Councillor Hunter said last night "I warned the Council the night this came up", referring to the police and fire recruit fund.

Councillor Pfisterer brought up the $35 m structural deficit not eliminating the homestead credit supposedly would cause through the end of 2014.  No alarms went out last year when the Republican controlled Council passed this year's budget using $40 m from the downtown TIF.  No alarms went out this year either, when another $10 m was pulled from the same source for next year.  And, it is factually inaccurate, to boot.  The Council's budget is as sound as the Mayor's introduced budget.  The fact of the matter is, that the recession will fade and the tax coffers will fill.  The income tax receipts are already rebounding and property values have stopped falling.  It is the Mayor's actions on TIFs that really jeopardize every taxing unit in Marion County and the services they provide.

Councillor Miller, who read a lengthy statement that demonstrates he understands exactly what is happening, bought into the idea that this is all about having a conversation.  He said "while I don't like coming to a conversation with a shotgun at my head, I have to agree that at this point a shotgun was the only way to get us to talk, and that's a shame".  That's simply not true, even though I think he believes it.  What exactly is to be discussed?  This budget process began back in August.  Plenty of time for discussion.  It was clear from the beginning that funding recruit classes was a priority of the Democrats - a goal Miller supported by the way.  Vaughn owns a phone.  Lewis owns a phone.  There could have been conversation.  These vetoes aren't about jump starting a conversation - they are about control.

I lost track of who repeated the thought that the appropriations remain, its just that the money won't be available to fund those appropriations for the County agencies.  That is clearly not true as the DLGF will insist on cutting appropriations so that the spending matches the funds available.  Whether they will wield an ax or a scalpel is unknown.

Vaughn's public display of temper will harm the Council, the County agencies, public safety, and the citizens of Indianapolis.  The least destructive road to travel at this point is for the Mayor's office to walk this back.  Allow the appropriations and funding to be reintroduced and not vetoed - and by January 1, 2013.  After that date the Council will not have the money to hold legally noticed meetings.  The shotgun Miller alludes to, is really aimed at forcing/blackmailing the Council into agreeing to raise taxes - likely in a few places besides the elimination of the homestead credit - and equally likely, pushing forward more of the Mayor's agenda.  Its not about the budget.  Its not about just wanting a conversation.  Its far more nefarious than that.  And the Council Republicans aided, abetted, and enabled Vaughn's vindictive and abusive ways.

Council Sends Prop 15 Back to Committee

Before the meeting officially began this evening, City-County Council President Maggie Lewis approached the microphone and announced that the Council would be sending Prop 15 back to committee.  She framed it as in the best interest of fairness.

Whew !  Given the politics of the situation, this was the best we could hope for tonight.

The new Chair of the Metropolitan & Economic Development committee, Leroy Robinson, will gavel his first committee meeting to order next Monday, September 24, at 5:30 pm.

Community Activist Files Lawsuit to Stop Prop 15

From a press release just issued by attorney, Paul Ogden:

Contact Person:   Paul K. Ogden, Attorney at Law

317-297-9720 (office); 317-728-6084 (cell)  pogden297@comcast

Date:          September 17, 2012

Private citizen Clark Kahlo today filed a lawsuit asking that a Court put the brakes on the expansion of the Downtown tax increment financing district.

Kahlo's lawsuit claims that a city ordinance requires that tabled motions be removed from the table within six months or they are considered dead and have to be removed from the list of pending proposals.  Proposal 15, the downtown TIF expansion proposal which includes Massachusetts Avenue, was tabled by Councilor Vop Osili at the February 6, 2012 meeting of the Metropolitan and Economic Development Committee ("MEDC") and not taken off the table until the August 27, 2012 meeting of the MEDC. The lawsuit alleges that the Proposal is dead and that it is a violation of the ordinance for the full Council to consider the Proposal at tonight's meeting.

The lawsuit also notes the MEDC failed to hold a vote on an amendment to the Proposal 15, which amendment reflected a backroom deal to gain the support of additional counselors for the expansion.

Attorney Paul Ogden, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Kahlo, noted the short period of time before the Council's meeting tonight saying:  "I hope that Council President Lewis will do the right thing and pull the proposal from consideration.  In light of the City's ordinance limiting tabled motions to a life of six months, if the Council passes Proposal 15 the measure will be in legal limbo.  The right thing to do is to remove the measure from consideration and have the councilors supporting it to reintroduce it if they so choose."

Proposal 15 seeks to expand the consolidated downtown TIF in two directions - to the east by 112 acres for the purported purpose of financing development on 0.8 acres on Massachusetts Avenue and to the west by 604 acres to finance the development of a couple acres near the old Bush Stadium.

The lawsuit notes that many of the 45 TIF districts in Indianapolis are underperforming and take property taxes away from schools, libraries, parks and public safety.  The lawsuit also discusses that the Indianapolis-Marion County Tax Increment Financing Commission found that there is little transparency and oversight when it comes to the Indianapolis TIF districts. The Commission's several recommendations regarding the creation of TIF districts are on the agenda to be introduced at tonight's meeting.

It should be noted that Prop 16, introduced on exactly the same day and tabled on exactly the same day, has been pulled from the list of pending proposals, as required by Council rules.

 

You can read the court filing by clicking here.

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."