Paul Ogden's Real Crime

I'm going to go all Edith Bunker on you, but please bear with me.

Paul Ogden was just a quintessential Indiana nail.

I used to work for a company that was spun off a major American company.  Eventually it was bought by a major Japanese company.  During those years I had one particular conversation that stuck with me.  One of the representatives of the parent firm said that the reason they liked to collaborate with and buy out Indiana companies was the similarity in the social culture.

That kind of took me by surprise and befuddled me.  He went on.

In Japan, he said, there is an old saying that translates to - "the nail that sticks up, gets hammered".

That social culture is what they found here.

Fellow blogger, Paul Ogden, a lawyer who just recently put his law degree on the inactive list, was the nail that stuck up.  With regularity he used his blog to expressed his opinions on many things legal - from untoward recruitment practices of law schools, to self-serving methods of certain high power law firms that run the City government contract by contract, to telling the stories of unpowerful people caught up in the powerful legal system.

He cared enough to say out loud what other lawyers just mumble under their breath, if they notice at all.

Ogden was the nail that stuck up.

In a complaint jumped on by the so-called Disciplinary Commission, running its course over the last couple of years, powerful enemies tried to just push him out.  They waved around an email, making claims of ex parte communications and (GASP !) criticism of a Judge.  They piled on accusations.

He pressed on, taking it all the way to the Indiana Supreme Court. 

The Court sided with Ogden on all the major points.

As blogger and lawyer, Gary Welsh, put it

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court in an opinion written by Chief Justice Brent Dickson issued a 30-day suspension rather than a public reprimand because it found Ogden had been "obstreperous" rather than "cooperative" during the matter, which essentially means he contested the charges brought against him.

The Court, while siding with Ogden on 80% of the matters, crippled him with an unitemized and onerous bill of $10,000.  Faint praise.

The image of the Disciplinary Commission is toast at this point, as far as I'm concerned.  They ignore real legal rogues all the time.  They chose, instead, to hammer Ogden.

The Court's image isn't doing all that much better.  Any citizen would hope they were somehow elevated.  But, they don't seem to be.

They have done nothing to rein in the excesses of the Disiplinary Commission and managed to accomplish the very end desired by the Commission, by invoking a sort of debtors prison from which Ogden could not escape.

The Court just picked a different hammer to deal with the nail that stood up.

In the end, Ogden can hold his head up.  The others, should they have a conscience, cannot.

There Needs to Be an Independent Investigation of the ROC Deal

Tracing the tentacles of this deal are madding.

I refer to the deal made to lease space in the old Eastgate Mall for a Regional Operations Center - in time for the 2012 SuperBowl.  The ROC was to be used as the heart of surveillance for the public gatherings - Homeland Security, IMPD, IFD central commands combined with federal agencies in one spot away from the action downtown.

The latest tentacles to be revealed were broadcast during last night's WTHR 11 O'clock news.  Sandra Chapman did an interview with Alex Carroll, owner of the facility.  He discloses that there was a secret deal with the City that involved a sizable up front payment to him, and that the City was responsible for drafting the lopsided lease agreement that puts all of the maintenance burden on the taxpayers.

Gary Welsh, over at Advance Indiana, did an excellent job of recapping the interview and putting what is known about the whole deal in perspective.  Previously, Paul Ogden described how lopsided the agreement is and that representatives of City Legal and the City Controller refused to sign off on the lease - leaving then Public Safety Director, Frank Straub, on his own (see here and here)

There must be an independent investigation of this deal.  All business conducted on behalf of the public must be made public - there can be no secret deals.  What is disclosed to the public must be accurate - officials cannot say they are making lease payments when they are paying off a loan directly.  The City may not take out a loan.  The City cannot float a bond without disclosing what that bond is to be used for and what dedicated revenue stream will repay it.

At this point it is unclear IF there was a secret deal, IF there was a sizable upfront payment and how much that was, IF there was a concerted effort to keep information from most of the Council and the public, IF there is a bank loan or a bond, and IF campaign contributions were part of the big picture.

The lease was put forth as Prop 102, 2011 with no lease details.  It originally was for 210,000 square feet, but that was reduced to 76,000 square feet before passage by the full Council on May 16, 2011.  The sponsors of the proposed lease were Councillors Ben Hunter and Mary Moriarty Adams.  The Eastgate Mall is in Hunter's district, but almost in Adams'.  At the time, Hunter Chaired the Public Safety Committee and Adams was the senior Democrat on that committee.

Below I have embedded a portion of the April 12, 2011 meeting of the Admin & Finance committee meeting - the first of two committee meetings to consider this lease.  This portion begins after Homeland Security Director Gary Coons' half hour presentation on what a ROC would be and why one was needed.  The embedded portion are the questions that the Councillors had.  Jon Mayes, Deputy Director, Special Counsel for the City responded to the questions.  It is instructive as to how little information these committee members were given initially.  Look for Councillor Barbara Malone's question of whether there any upfront fee for renovation of the facility and Councillor Jackie Nytes inquiry as to whether construction had already begun on the facility.

The answers by Mr. Mayes include that this was to be a 20 year lease, with no upfront money and all construction and renovation costs amortized in the lease payments.  Those payments were to be $1.2 million per year.  The Proposal was amended later and his statements may only refer to the introduced situation.  Construction had already begun on this site by the time the committee was given Prop 102 to consider.

There needs to be a full vetting of exactly what the arrangements were, who authorized them, and how honest everyone has been in divulging the details of that arrangement.

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.

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.

Star Editorial Board Sides With Voters

The Star's Editorial Board has come down on the side of the voters and calls on the Election Board and Voter Registration to open voter lists to unslated candidates.

These candidates are legally on the ballot.

The voter lists are public documents.

But the Voter Registration Office is run by the county party chairmen - even though the taxpayers foot the bill.  These men are extreme partisans, to the point where even democracy is less important than the unbridled power they wield.  Slating is a farce and worse.  None the less, one does not need to go through slating in order to put their name on the ballot.  In fact, only Marion County and perhaps Lake County in Indiana even have slating.

Those who give voters a choice in the primary are feared by the party chairmen precisely because they provide a choice for the voters.   So, they put as many hurdles in front of those defenders of democracy as possible - including delaying or  outright denying voter list so these candidates can get their message out.

Running for Judge are Republican Paul Ogden and Democrats Greg Bowes and Mark King.  Democrats running for State Rep are Brian Cooper in District 92 and Zach Mullholland in District 100.

All have filed a lawsuit against the Election Board in an attempt to remedy this problem for all of us here in Marion County - the last bastion of Boss Hog politics.  The case is to be heard tomorrow in Judge Rosenberg's Court.

How Much Is the Superbowl Costing Indianapolis and Indiana Taxpayers?

Paul Ogden has a riveting blog entry today about the real cost to cities and states that host Super Bowls.  I highly recommend "Sports Economist Says Indianapolis is Big Loser Financially From Hosting Super Bowl" to all taxpayers of Indianapolis and, yes, even all of Indiana.

Meanwhile, Council President Ryan Vaughn - before the election - promised the Council that he would do his best to get the Ballard Administration to cough up information about how much cash the February Super Bowl is costing Indianapolis.  So far, nothing has come forward.  And considering how much water Vaughn is carrying for Ballard these days, it leaves this writer wondering why they will not tell the public what the price tag is.

More News About Broad Ripple Parking Garage Deal - Sheesh !

In what ranks as a truly convoluted and weird twist in the ongoing saga of the bad Broad Ripple Parking Garage deal, WRTV reporter, Kara Kenney scores this tidbit from Council President, Ryan Vaughn:

If the garage is profitable - the City can buy it for $1.  If the garage is unprofitable - the developer can make the City buy it for $1.

Wowsa !

Fellow blogger and lawyer, Paul Ogden, does an excellent job of analysing the legal illogic embodied in this strategy in his entry yesterday "Council President Ryan Vaughn Claims Broad Ripple Parking Garage Will Have Two-Way, Buy-Sell Option; Vaughn's Claim Strains Any Credibility".  I highly recommend you read it.

I have to look at it this way -  if the garage is profitable, why would the City essentially take it from the developer?  Don't we want private enterprise?  I know that's why I question a lot of deals that the City makes, because the taxpayers are bankrolling what should be private enterprise on the private dime.  I can't imagine any Mayor taking the heat for taking a profitable business from any business person for $1 for any reason - contract or no contract.

If the garage is unprofitable, why should the City's taxpayers be on the hook for it?  Why is the theme of the Ballard administration that business should not carry any risk?  In one deal after another, Ballard forks over large sums of taxpayer cash to a developer and crafts a deal to remove any future risk to the develop, and transfers that risk back to the taxpayers.  Remember No-So; the poster child of no risk to the developer?

I would sum this deal and others up with :

heads - the developer wins -- tails - the City loses

Are Women On the Council An Endangered Species?

Paul Ogden has posted his predictions for the coming elections - for both Mayor and Council. Let me mention up front as a disclaimer - I am a candidate for one of the 4 At-Large positions on the Democratic side.

I am not good at making predictions, so I'll leave that arena to Paul and others. But, I can count.

Currently there are 12 women who hold Council seats. Six are D's and six are R's. There are 25 district seats and 4 At-Large seats.

Not running again are Jackie Nytes and Doris Minton-McNeil, both D's. Men only, have signed up to run for those seats.

Ogden is predicting that Barb Malone (R) will not win her re-election bid.

Of the 5 most vulnerable district seats, according to Odgen's analysis, 4 are held by women (Janice McHenry, Marilyn Pfisterer, Susie Day, and Christine Scales). Mike McQuillen, who currently occupies the most vulnerable district seat, does have a woman opponent in Regina Marsh.

Unless the two parties put forth a huge effort in recruiting and backing viable women candidates, it is possible that the new Council could have as few as 5 or 6 women in it. This would be an especially poor result in an historic year where we elect Melina Kennedy as our first woman Mayor for the City of Indianapolis.

Reposting Ogden Blog: "Decatur Superintendent Arrested For DUI; Does Lying Matter?"

Yesterday, Paul Ogden, author of the OgdenOnPolitics blog, posted about Stinson's statements to the police on the night of his arrest. I reprint it here with Paul's permission:

The city, particularly the southwest portion of the county, is abuzz over the recent arrest of Decatur Township Superintendent Don Stinson for DUI. The Star reports:

Decatur Township Schools Superintendent Donald Stinson expressed remorse and regret Monday, a day after he was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving in Plainfield.

"I made a terrible error in judgment," Stinson said Monday in a telephone interview with The Indianapolis Star. "I've embarrassed myself. Even worse, I've embarrassed my family and friends and have unnecessarily brought negative attention to our district."

Decatur School Board President Dale Henson said board members would discuss sanctions against Stinson tonight during the board's regular meeting. Stinson was not suspended Monday.

Stinson, 60, was driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.12 when an officer stopped his pickup truck on Ind. 267 near Stafford Road at 1:42 a.m. Sunday, according to a Plainfield Police Department report.

Police arrested Stinson on initial charges of drunken driving and public intoxication, the report said.

Officer Michael Pigman saw Stinson drive a 2008 Chevrolet Tacoma over a curb and weave across the lane markers before he pulled the vehicle over, the report said.

Stinson smelled of alcohol and initially told the officer he was returning from a Walmart and had consumed a beer. Later he admitted drinking two glasses of wine at one tavern and two more beers at another, the report said.

...

To see the rest of the article click here.

It's unfortunate that the claims of drivers arrested for DUI regarding how much alcohol was consumed are never challenged by reporters. Stinson tested at .12 which he said was based on drinking two glasses of wine and two beers. BS.

If Stinson drank those two glasses of wine and two beers in a one hour period, his BAC would probably only be at .06. If he didn't drink that fast and he spent three hours consuming those two beers and two glasses of wine, he would have only been at .02.

Stinson would have had to drank at least 10 glasses of wine or beers over a three hour period to get to .12. Stinson clearly has not told the truth. Does that matter?

Note: I used the drink wheel to measure BAC. That can be found here.

I'mmmm Baaaacccckkkk !!!!!

Hope the holiday season has been good to you and your family. My hiatus was much longer than I anticipated - but fun and refreshing.

I do have a couple of comments on items that caught my attention in the paper and elsewhere this past month. No links to IndyStar will be possible, as those articles are now in the archives.

First and foremost, I sit in admiration of Paul Ogden and his efforts to see that folks accused of a crime are treated properly in our jails and also the latest lawsuit he filed to challenge the traffic court's practice of threatening higher traffic ticket penalties if you want your case heard by the judge. Both of Paul's efforts have seen others, Democratic Party blog "Indianapolis Times" and the Indianapolis Star's editorial board, respectively, try to diminish him with snipes. Their pettiness has only diminished themselves, in my eyes.

The traffic court judge is acting like a Boss Hog - and he needs to either clean up his act or be gone. Traffic fines are already too high - approximating a week's worth of groceries. For the judge to threaten to up the already too high fine just because an American wants his or her due process is an abuse of his authority. I'm not a lawyer, and I hope the judge's actions are not in accordance with legal tenets. But, I am a citizen and when anyone diminishes the rights of others, they diminish my rights as well. Good luck Paul Ogden !!! Keep fighting the good fight.

Prop 418 went down along party lines in committee. 418 was the Council Resolution asking the State Legislature to give Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council the authority to review abatement decisions. Ours is the only County in Indiana where that authority does not reside with the Council. Mayor Ballard must have been throwing his weight around behind closed doors again. The Republican Councillors abandoned any commitment they have to being actual members of the Council and voted against strengthening the Council's position. Even Councillor Plowman - who championed the issue at the Legislature just last year - and Councillor Smith - who co-sponsored the Council Resolution - voted against the Proposal. Its a shame. I hope it is brought up again and again until the authority to review is granted our Council. Councillor Brian Mahern has shown himself to be an outstanding Councillor this year. We are all better off because he at least tried to make a real difference on the Council. My hat is off to him.

A huge victory was won, at least temporarily, by Charlie Goodman and Jerry Baker and others at the Indiana Tree Alliance. The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission has set aside a key operational rule regarding the authority IPL has to trim trees on private property. The final decision on the permanence of this rule awaits a final decision on IPL's tree trimming practices, due sometime in late spring, if I understand the timing correctly. Goodman and Baker are hoping that the State Legislature takes up the issue and returns property rights to property owners this session. For more information about the issues, to find out how you can help, and to get the Alliance's newsletter, visit their new website : www.indianatreealliance.com

Mayor Ballard's new Chief of Staff, Chris Cotterill, continues to impress me. After the new head of the Animal Care and Control Board pulled another Boss Hog move, barring Channel 16 from covering his Board meetings, Cotterill stated on behalf of the Mayor, that he'd bring a video camera to the meetings himself, if that is what it took to re-open them to the viewing public. I don't know who the new AC&C Board Chairman is, but his appointment should be reviewed. How out of touch can you be? To pull the Channel 16 access when AC&C has seen one upheaval after another? That agency needs to prove itself and the more citizens who can see for themselves, the better. Cotterill is making the 25th floor a much more interesting place.

And bringing things closer to up to date - let me just say that the Colts organization should refund the ticket price to everyone who paid their hard earned money for a seat to yesterday's game - with the exception of season ticket holders. Those tickets are not cheap and those folks deserved a real attempt to win. They got bupkiss.

Hope your family is healthy and close as we finish up the holiday season. 2010 is just around the corner now. Wow ! 2010 ! Just think, ten years ago we were worried about the end of civilization as we know it because computers only had two digits to denote the year ! Now we have YouTube and Twitter !!!! And I-phones !!!! Wow ! What an incredible time to be alive !

Notes on the Budget Hearings - August 19

Again - not a list of the important items, just what struck me as interesting.

This one should be subtitled: Down the rabbit hole with Alice. Bizarre, odd, unnerving, curious, weird, and absurd.

After a long evening of budget hearings, the last one, for the Marion County Sheriff's Department, began. Rolled through the presentation and Council questions okay enough. Then it was public comment time. I rose and spoke first. Then, Paul Ogden, identifying himself as an attorney, began to comment on some of the numbers that were stated during Sheriff's Department presentation and also the practice of assigning violent offenders to Jail II in contradiction of the terms of the use of Jail II for non-violent offenders only. This is something Ogden has blogged about just recently -- see here. He later also commented on a contract for inmate phone service between the company providing the service and the Sheriff's Department - the money going into the Commissary Fund, which oddly enough, is not reviewed as part of the Sheriff's Department budget, even though money comes and goes into this Fund from service provided by the Sheriff and to expenses paid by the Sheriff.

Here's how things appeared from my seat in the very back of the room. A fellow in a suit moved to just ahead of the side door to the room, a move common when a person does not want to be missed by the Chairman of the Committee as desiring to speak. Good, I thought. More people giving input. I like it. After a moment, the fellow moved forward to about three feet behind Ogden. Again, not uncommon when the person in line wants to be sure they are seen by the Chairman who this night was Ryan Vaughn. After Ogden's first couple of points were made, this fellow was asked to answer for the Sheriff. He identified himself as Kevin Murray, also a lawyer. He moved very, very close to Ogden. Within inches. It was so close that it was, in animal behavior terms, a threatening distance. Several times he tried to stop Ogden from continuing his comments. He hovered just behind/beside Ogden while there was a second microphone just on the other side of where Sheriff Anderson was seated. A person who tries to bring forward information during public comment time should not be dogged like this fellow dogged Ogden.

see here for Ogden's recap of that night's events

see here for the Channel 16 archive of the hearing -- click on "Public Safety & Criminal Justice, Part 2 of 2 --- Aug 19, 2009" and forward the video to about time stamp 11:30

Take a look at the video and come to your own conclusions. But, for my money, when a member of the public believes that there are things happening in a City or County Department that ought not be happening, they have every right to bring it up when the Council is considering allowing the Department to spend more taxpayer money. And a lawyer for that Department should not be allowed to stand so close or interrupt the speaker as was allowed that night.