Cataloging Nepotism At MSD Decatur Township

Okay fellow Decaturites, I can use your help.  I want to make a sidebar on this blog that lists all of the relatives of Board members and Administrators who are on the payroll at MSD Decatur Township.  Please contribute the name of the employee, position, and relation to person of influence.  Also add any other fact you think would enhance the utility of this list to waking up the Township to how much advantage these folks are personally taking of the District and its taxpayers.

Thank you.

The Right Of Public Comment Debated At City-County Council

On Monday night the content of Proposal 210 was not the issue.  The issue was how the Councillors in charge chose to shut down public comment on it.  And this time, Democrats spoke up plainly and in numbers to challenge the ban.

Paul Ogden blogged about this episode of the Council meeting over at Ogden On Politics (see "Republican Councilors Vote to Oppose Public Comment and Open Government") yesterday.

The focal point of this whole thing was the appointment of one Richard Kraft to the Board of Zoning Appeals.  At the committee meeting, Chairwoman Janice McHenry, announced that there would be no public comment taken.  Furthermore, she cited the fact that Council rules leave the decision on whether there will or will not be any public testimony up to the discretion of the Chair (see "Public Input Sacrificed For The Convenience Of Elected Officials").  To make matters just a little bit worse, the public was also barred from obtaining a copy of Mr. Kraft's bio before the meeting started.

When Prop 210 was brought forth for full Council consideration Monday night,  Councillor Angela Mansfield moved that the Council send it back to committee for the purpose of having public comment.  Councillor McHenry reiterated that it was up to the Chair and that they did not have to take public comment.  Councillor Vernon Brown stated that taking public comment was in the interest of open and transparent government.  Mansfield's motion went to a vote and failed by a vote of 12 in support and 16 against sending Prop 210 back to committee.

Those voting yea were Democrats Bateman, Brown, Evans, Gray, Lewis, B. Mahern, D. Mahern, Mansfield, Moriarty, Nytes, Oliver and Sanders.

Those voting nay were Libertarian Coleman, Republicans Cain, Cardwell, Cockrum, Day, Freeman, Hunter, Lutz, Malone, McHenry, McQuillen, Pfisterer, Rivera, Sandlin, Vaughn, and lone Democrat Minton-McNeill.

The discussion continued to revolve around the issue of allowing public comment in committee meetings.  Councillor Brian Mahern asked if they could take public comment right there and then and Council President Ryan Vaughn noted that it had not been posted for public comment therefore they could not.

Various Republican Councillors cast aspersions on the potential public commenters and said it made it difficult to find people who would want to serve.  Various Democratic Councillors noted that the Chair should be able to control the meeting if inappropriate comments were being made, but that the public just might have something important to add to the decision making process.  I think Councillor Monroe Gray had the most succinct take on it when he said "How do you know what someone is going to say, if you don't let them speak?"

I am glad that this dialog took place in the Council chambers.  It is high time that Councillors put their heads together to find a new public process that protects the feelings of appointees, but weighs more heavily the public's right to make their opinions known.  The BZAs and the MDC make extremely impactful decisions nearly every time they meet.  Those of us who represent the interests of our neighborhoods have been reluctant to speak publicly about the reappointment of members of these bodies whose decisions or interactions with remonstrators are poor, for fear of recrimination when we appear before those individuals again.  But, that self-imposed reluctance is falling by the wayside.

For myself, I hit a wall a couple of years ago and figured that certain members of the BZA could not possibly do any more harm to my area than they were already doing.  These members actually ended up in the majority that granted a variance to a homeowner in an area with more than 5 houses per acre, allowing them to park a semi at their house.  In the course of the hearing, one of these board members actually said to me, "if we make a decision today, will you stop coming down here?".  This particular person had snotty comments to make to remonstrators all the time.  I contacted the appointing bodies of these three individuals and noted that I would appear publicly and speak against their reappointment, should that ever happen.  Since none of these three people were reappointed, I did not appear.  But, I was fed up and certainly would have.

Sticking simply to the process - there must be a way to craft an open public process that meets multiple objectives.  But, until such a process is crafted, one would hope that all of the Councillors would put far more weight on the integrity of open government, validated by open public hearings on all matters that come before the Council, including appointments to Boards and Commissions.

After much discussion on everything but Mr. Kraft, Prop 210 went to a vote.  It passed by a vote of 17 to 11.

Those voting yea was Libertarian Coleman, Republicans Cain, Cardwell, Cockrum, Day, Freeman, Hunter, Lutz, Malone, McHenry, McQuillen, Pfisterer, Rivera, Sandlin, Vaughn, and Democrats B. Mahern and D. Mahern.

Those voting nay were Democrats Bateman, Brown, Evans, Gray, Lewis, Mansfield, Minton-McNeill, Moriarty, Nytes, Oliver, and Sanders.

[edited to note that Councillor Christine Scales was not present Monday night]

Unite Here ! Raises The Temperature On Behalf Of Downtown Hotel Workers

Its one part brazen, one part brilliant. 

Unite Here ! is a national group seeking to unionize hotel workers here in Indianapolis.  Organizer Becky Smith is spearheading the 'adopt a hotel worker' movement that showed up in force at last night's City-County Council meeting.

You may recall how hotel management hid behind the skirts and aprons of the hotel workers two years ago, in order to get more tax money to the Capital Improvement Board (CIB).  The CIB provides about 75% of the funding of the Indianapolis Convention and Visitors Association (ICVA).  The ICVA spends money to discount room rates to conventions.  See how tax revenues gets into the hands of the hotels? 

Concurrent with raising their voices and using hotel workers as props to get taxes raised that would benefit themselves, these same hotel managers were increasing work loads, outsourcing jobs, and fighting the workers' right to unionize.

It does not take much of a realist to know that any hotel worker who stands up and speaks out against hotel management risks losing their job.  Unite Here's answer - other folks step and and speak out on behalf of hotel workers - one person/one worker at a time.

Its one part gutzy, one part genius.

The focus of the adopt a hotel worker program is Prop 242, which was introduced at last night's Council meeting.

This proposal, sponsored by Councillors Lewis, Sanders, B. Mahern, D. Mahern, and Moriarty Adams, would return to a qualified hotel worker, the amount of County Option Income Tax paid by the worker.  The aggregate payments could not exceed $250,000 or 10% of all money spent by the City/County on outside consultants in any particular year, whichever is less.  The hotel worker must pay Marion County's COIT, must make more than $10,000 as a downtown hotel worker, and must make less than $25,000 total. 

Smith is interested in getting Prop 242 passed with a bi-partisan majority of the Council.

It strikes me that the effort alone will help shed a bright light on the fact that those in top spots of the downtown hospitality industry are personally prospering, partially due to the largess of taxpayers, but also partially due to greater workloads and lower wages for those who occupy lower spots on the ladder.

It was exciting to see the crowd of red-shirted stand-ins for the hotel workers last night.  They filled the seats, they filled the aisles, and they spilled into the lobby.  It is good to be reminded that sometimes we simply must lead with our heart and our conscience and do what is right - simply because it is right.

I cannot end this piece without giving props to Council President, Ryan Vaughn.  He did exactly the right thing last night regarding the crowd.  He asked all city workers to give up their seats, and he let those folks standing in the aisles remain.  So, kudos to him for being absolutely reasonable.

The proposal was assigned to the Rules committee, which will consider it on September 27 beginning at 5:30 pm, in the Public Assembly Room of the City-County Building.


All in all, this will be one to watch.  For now though, you have to admit that Unite Here's adopt a hotel worker approach has some cachet.  Its one part sassy, one part smart.

Oy Vey ! They Are Robbing The Downtown TIF District - AGAIN !

I don't know if it was luck that I had too much to do yesterday, so I couldn't blog about how intrigued I was with the Ballard Administration's interest in creating a 'fiscal stability fund' with $80 million of the money they will soon receive from the sale of the water and sewer utilities to Citizens Energy Group.  Now I read in today's Star a report by Chris Sikich, that the Mayor intends to steal $40 million from the Consolidated Downtown TIF District for use in the 2012 budget.  Yes, I used the word 'steal'.   There is so much wrong with this idea, that I will have to slow myself down just to be clear.

Back up to the fiscal stability fund.  I attended the Council Rules committee meeting Wednesday night because they were going to consider the super bowl ordinance, and I had comments to make that I knew would fall on deaf ears - which they did.  Not long before leaving the house I got an email alert from the IBJ about Scott Olson's report regarding the fiscal stability fund's creation and uses.  So, I decided to stay and hear more.  The fund would have a single deposit of $80 million from the proceeds of the sale of the utilities.  Its purpose would be to maintain the same dollar amount now used to calm bond buyers that we can repay our water and sewer utility bonds.  The responsibility to repay those bonds will transfer along with the assets of the utilities upon closing to Citizens Energy.  The nut of the idea was to assure bond buyers that the City was flush with cash and our bonds were extra outstanding.  It should be noted that during the Ballard term, our bond rating did slip temporarily from AAA.  The stated intention of the fiscal stability fund was to keep the AAA rating.  The need supposedly would only be for a year or two, then the money could be moved over to the RebuildIndy fund for use toward infrastructure projects. 

I did ask one question that may be more pertinent than I thought at the time.  That question was: could the MDC use accounting tricks in order to allow the reserve amounts in the TIF district funds to drop below prudent levels, by assuring bond holders that we had this extra $80 million just sitting there - so we were going to be able to make our payments on the bonds they bought.  The answer came back - no.

I know that Democrats were trying to make the case that this fiscal stability fund was just being used as an accounting trick to make the City's 2012 budget seem balanced.  I figured, and still do, that the validity of that assertion would become clear with the release of the budget numbers Monday night.

Fast forward to today's news about the City stealing $40 million from the Consolidated Downtown TIF district.  The Mayor is saying that the City has the right to get a refund from that TIF district for all of the infrastructure work it has done over the years on downtown.  Well...  I wouldn't bet the farm that the City has that legal right.  It has overstepped its legal authority time and again with that TIF district in the past couple of years to the point that they just say whatever they think they have to in order to use that TIF money as a slush fund.

Here are the thoughts running through my head on this news:

There is a difference between the MDC having a public hearing on the expenditure of funds from the Downtown TIF district for infrastructure improvements downtown BEFORE they occur, and the Mayor demanding a refund AFTER they occur.

Show the public the receipts from these improvements.

Any extra money in a TIF district belongs to all of the taxing units, not just the City.  In fact, only about 1/3 of the property taxes would have gone into City/County coffers.  About half would have flowed to IPS.  There is a real disconnect when the City simply claims it all as their own.

Are the reserve funds that will be left in the consolidated downtown TIF district fund at the prudent level for the assurance of bond holders?  The Council's economic advisor, Jim Steele, mentioned 15% as such a prudent benchmark.  Or, is the City going to force that reserve to drop below prudent levels, then point to the $80 million fiscal stability fund to reassure bond holders that we can repay our debts?

Are the Democrats correct about the shell game?  Is Mayor Ballard taking $80 million from the sale of the utility, using that as a substitute for the prudent reserve that should be left in the Downtown TIF fund, and absconding with $40 million from that fund to pay the City's bills in 2012?  Is the real reason to maintain the fiscal stability fund for one or two years in order to give the Downtown TIF fund time to take in enough property taxes to replenish the prudent reserve?

Even if there is no shell game and the reserves of the Consolidated Downtown TIF fund are kept at the 15% prudent reserve level, there remains the basic issue of Mayor Ballard time and again using the extra funds in the TIF as his slush fund - to spend any way he wants instead of sending the excess back to the taxing units and relieving the taxpayers of some of their burden.

Will the Council stop this latest theft from the Downtown TIF?  The Council has recently said they want to find ways to ensure that TIF districts are dealt with in a responsibility manner (see "Excellent").  Even Council President, Ryan Vaughn, was quoted as being in favor.  Is that really true?  If so, they should back it up by denying Mayor Ballard this one last mega-misuse of the TIF district fund.

Oy Vey !

Superbowl Ordinance Back At Council Committee Tonight

The first item on the City-County Council Rules committee agenda for tonight is Prop 188, the Superbowl Ordinance.  The meeting starts at 6 pm in room 260 of the City-County Building.

Prop 188 hands over almost all of the detail and certainly all of the authority for decisions to the Department of Code Enforcement.  More specifically, it hands over the promulgation of specific regulations to the approval of that agency's Board, and the licensing and more decisions to the Department's License Administrator.

The ordinance defines 'special event zones' and 'clean zones', but leaves the approval of same in the hands of the License Administrator, with no public input possible.  Licenses for vending and other activity within the clean zone also requires the approval of the event sponsor.

The License Administrator would also have the sole power, again without any public input, to approve signage that is currently illegal inside Marion County.  This is "including but not limited to inflatables, cold air balloons, banners, pennants, flags, building wraps, A-frame signs, T-frame signs, projected image signs, electronic variable message signs, and light emitting diode signs. Mobile advertising signs shall not be  permitted under this provision."

From the beginning (see "Superbowl Ordinance Before City-County Council")  I have tried to obtain the details of what is actually going to be the end result should this ordinance pass.  I have been rebuffed by the Administration that claims to be 'transparant'. 

I first requested of DCE, what regulations it was considering proposing to its Board, should Prop 188 be enacted.  I was told, "As a matter of process, we cannot develop or propose regulation unless an ordinance is in place".  I then asked them for a copy of all correspondence between DCE and any member of the Indianapolis 2012 Super Bowl Host Committee, as it was apparent that the NFL and the Host committee and the City had some sort of agreements in place - if only to land the 2012 Super Bowl.  Monday I obtained 702 pages of emails - more on them below. 

At the same time, I requested of City Legal, a copy of any agreement between the City and the NFL regarding Super Bowl 2012.  I was told the City "did not locate any documents responsive to your request".  I then asked for any agreement between the City of Indianapolis and any organization regarding Super Bowl 2012.  I was told that my request lacked enough specificity to be fulfilled, according to State Law requirements. 

Nobody is divulging exactly what is being agreed to through this ordinance.  The public and the Councillors are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.

Back to the 702 pages of emails that I did receive.  Most were mundane - setting up meeting dates, etc.  Here are some of the piece that I could glean from the messages:

1) the superbowl ordinance is based on what the City or the Indianapolis 2012 Super Bowl Host Committee (ISC),I do not know which, proposed to the NFL as part of its bid package to land the 2012 Super Bowl for Indianapolis.  In an email dated September 18, 2010, Adam Collins (the author of the ordianance and DCE's license administrator) introduced himself to Michele Raines (VP, Event Operations & Government Relations, ISC) saying:

By way of introduction, I have been tasked to head the City's efforts to revise our current special events ordinance to accommodate changes required for the upcoming Super Bowl and other civic sponsored major events.  To ensure that we are tackling all the areas that the City has agreed to in the Super Bowl bid, I was hoping you had a copy of the executive summary that you could send to me electronically.

the response from Raines:

Adam - it's nice to meet you and I look forward to working with you.  Attached are the bid specs for the Clean Zone ordinance from the NFL that we have committed to meet.

There was an attachment which was not provide to me in the 702 pages.  I subsequently requested a copy of it.

2) the public has been the last to be enlightened about what is in the ordinance - and I would also say that we are still very much in the dark as to what details will emerge AFTER prop 188 passes.

For several months, the draft ordinance that Collins was working on was called the 'Clean Zone ordinanance' in emails.

The initial draft ordinance was ready in mid-December, 2010.  By early January, 2011, the ISC was reviewing it.  On January 28, 2011, a review and comments on it were returned to Collins from Scott Bearby, Managing Director of Legal Affairs/Associate General Counsel for the NCAA.

On June 13, 2011, there was an inquiry to Collins from the ISC's Andrew Arnold, Director of Event Operations, as to whether he might share the draft with the NFL's Clean Zone attorney.  The response was:

I see no issues with it, so long as he agrees that we're in the top 1% of ordinances relative to the Clean Zone in the country.

Personally, I think that the City needs to create ordinances that hold the residents' interests above all others.

On June 22, 2011, there was a meeting with the Indiana Sports Corp. to inform them of the ordinance and solicit their support before the Council.

Also on June 22, Collins requested help in arranging a briefing for Mark Wolf from BRVA and Susan Vogt from Riley Area/MAMA and to solicit their support at the Council.

Prop 188 was introduced at the June 27 meeting of the full Council.

On June 30 there was a meeting with residents of the Babe Denny neighborhood that abuts the south side of Lucas Oil Stadium, where an 'events ordinance' was noted fairly in passing.  It was mentioned that this ordinance had been introduced to the Council as Prop 188.

3) meetings with neighbors deliberately held back information

There was a meeting with residents of the Babe Denny neighborhood earlier, as well, on January 26.  In an email conversation that started two days earlier between Arnold (ISC), Collins (DCE), and Rick Powers (Director, DCE) -- Arnold asked Powers if he wanted to discuss potential parking ordinance changes with the neighborhood.  Powers asked Collins if his work was far enough along to do so.  Collins said "So long as we emphasize the fact that our concept is preliminary, we could begin to provide information.  Andy [Arnold], I'm assuming this means that you didn't have any significant issues with the parking portion of the ordinance?"

The response from Arnold was:

That's correct...however, after further discussion with Mel [Raines] today, we think that we should hold off on discussing this detail for now, and save it for a future meeting that when we can discuss in further detail, along with most of the other details.  If I remember correctly, we initially added this to the agenda as a way to flush out potential issues/concerns with the changes.

I think our general course for tomorrow should be to briefly mention parking in the overall Super Bowl planning overview, saying that we know everyone has some interest in the topic.  Inform them that we will be gathering additional info while in North Texas, and share that we will continue to address in ongoing meetings with them. If attendees have specific questions during the Q&A period, try to avoid too much detail until a future meeting.

Our goal is to work very hard to keep the meeting positive, and we're afraid that introducing something that everyone may not agree with could turn the meeting negative quickly, I hope that this makes sense and that you both agree.

This also gives us time to discuss the draft ordinance as a committee on Friday, before presenting anything to anyone publically.

Please let me know if you have additional questions.

Thanks.

AA

Parking is the number one issue with the residents of Babe Denny.  The neighbors were handled, not dealt with as adults who had a right to information.

4) there are, indeed, specifics being considered that are not called out in Prop 188, but would be implemented should it pass into law.

A number of links to news items were circulated regarding the Dallas Super Bowl.  Of note is one from the the Fort Worth Star Telegram ("Super Bowl kept Arlington staffers busy")

From cracking down on counterfeit NFL merchandise sales to addressing illegal parking and advertising, Super Bowl weekend kept Arlington's code compliance officers busy.

Code officers, along with health inspectors, logged more than 320 inspections at neighborhoods and businesses around Cowboys Stadium on Feb. 4-6, city records show.

Much of the activity focused on making sure private businesses and churches were legally operating their entrepreneurial parking lots, though code officers also addressed issues such as junked cars, abandoned shopping carts and illegally operating pedicabs and pulled up at least 80 so-called bandit signs along street medians.

We know from a presentation that Collins made on July 16, 2011, to the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations, that there are plans for a 'rocket docket' during the weeks of Super Bowl festivities, where a Judge will be available at all times to shut down violators nabbed by Code Enforcement Officers.  Who, exactly will be paying for these services that will be provided to protect the NFL's commercial license agreements?

Minutes of the December 9, 2010, meeting of the ISC Restaurant Super Service Commitee provided as part of the 702 pages illuminate some additional expectations.  The NFL will be the deciding factor if vendor food carts will be allowed.  A requirement of a special placard for display in restaurant windows to indicate state inspection complete will likely be built into the superbowl ordinance.  Permanent restaurants should expand their seating by 20%.  They should use their sidewalk cafes to prepare food and beverage outside of their restaurants.  They should seek encroachment permits to serve food and beverage on the sidewalk.  The city should clarify laws to allow the public to walk around with an 'open beverage' [I think they are referring to alcohol and not Sprite].  The city should also work on a legal manner through which businesses will be able to serve these beverages to the public for walking around with.

All in all, I did get some details of what is actually intended to be accomplished with the passage of Prop 188.  But, the entire story should be shared with the public before that proposal is passed into law and it is too late for public input.  This ordinance should fit our City and our residents.  We should be its focus, and not the NFL.

Decatur School District - Discrimination Lawsuits and (Could It Be?) Stinson Retiring

The MSD Decatur Township School District has been rocked by not one, but two federal lawsuits claiming discrimination. 

The first was filed in June by the Mother of a Decatur Central High School student who suffered racial harassment by fellow students, which it seems, the administration did little to stop.  WRTV's Joanna Massee reported it thusly:

The family of a former Decatur Central High School student has filed suit against the district, which they claim did little to stop repeated racial taunts aimed at the 16-year-old girl.

The sophomore, who is black, said she received an offensive cellphone message during class and had been approached by other students who addressed her using racial slurs, 6News' Joanna Massee reported.

The girl's mother, Chereall DeBoest, played 6News the cellphone message, which includes a picture of a Ku Klux Klan member fishing with fried chicken, as well as audio including defamatory language.

Just last week, a former employee filed an age and disability lawsuit against the District.  Fox 59 reporter, Anne Yeager, described it this way:

A former employee said a Central Indiana school fired him because he was diagnosed with cancer.  

Keith Jones, 61, worked as a police officer for the Decatur Township School District for 14 years. He was stunned to lose his job last summer.

His boss told him he was being laid off due to "fiscal restructuring." Jones' friends and colleagues told him that wasn't the reason at all, though. Co-workers told him the district's insurance carrier had red-flagged Jones, after he was diagnosed with cancer in 2004 and 2005.

Jones admits he needed regular radiation treatments and expensive surgeries. He said he was appalled when he learned that just two months later, the district hired an officer "half his age" to fill the position.

Whether related to the pressures of these lawsuits or the crushing debt he imposed on the District, Superintendent Don Stinson is rumored to be looking to retire.  By the way, Stinson is said to have announced all this to the staff of the Gold Academy on Monday.

The rumors are consistent in that Nan Wiseman, current Principal at the Gold Academy, will move into the Central Office and take Assistant Superintendent Debbie Sullivan's job.  Sullivan would move up to Superintendent. 

Where the rumors diverge is whether Stinson would retire in January, or stay on, ala Wayne Township's Tommy Thompson, hauling down a fit salary for little work.  In this version of the rumor, Stinson would remain on salary as a "mentor" to Sullivan.  As we know, Thompson was turned out of his cush semi-retirement, "Superintendent Emeritus" gig once the public became aware of his scamming the taxpayers.  Stinson may believe he can out Thompson Thompson, given his rubberstamping School Board who questions nothing he does.

We shall see.  The District is in a huge mess and after all, rats will be rats and flee a sinking ship. 

City Way - The Rebranding Of North of South

You know that a deal stinks to high heaven when the powers that be are forced to rename it.

So it went the other day, when Mayor Greg Ballard helped break ground on the renamed North of South (aka No-So) project.  The new name is City Way (aka City No Way To Run A City).  Lest the Google bots not find sufficient linkage between the worst deal for taxpayers to come out of the Ballard years as Mayor and its new name, let me provide some contextual linkage here.

City Way is the new name for North of South.

This project takes all of the risk off the developer and puts it squarely on the taxpayers of Indianapolis.

The taxpayers loaned the City Way (No-So) developer $86 million that it got by floating a $98 million bond that was secured with property taxes gathered from the Consolidated Downtown TIF district.  The developer gets to pay the loan back with whatever money it would pay in property taxes on its development, in effect granting the developer a 10-year 100% abatement on the project.  Should part of the project be profitable, swell -- the developer can pay back the City for that portion and pocket the rest of the profit.  Should part of the project be unprofitable, no problem -- the developer can default on that portion despite the fact the rest of the project is profitable.

The developer is supposed to seek refinancing for the project in ten years.  But, the City floated 30 year bonds - and whether or not the City will use the money to pay off the rest of the $98 million bond at that time is anyone's guess.  Should there be a problem with the development, no problem - the City will  foreclose on it and add millions more taxpayer money to finish it.

The City will also put in some $9 million of streets and sewers and parking meters.

With about 30,000 square feet of office space and, hopefully one small wet lab, the State of Indiana designated it a Certified Technology Park and tossed a free $6 million to the developer. 

Eli Lilly stands to benefit substantially.  Although they are credited with donating $30 million to the project, half is a way early payment from the City on another TIF district set up specifically to benefit Lilly and half is credit for the value of the land upon which City Way (No-So) will be built.  The latter is not really a contribution, as Lilly will retain ownership and lease the ground to whomever owns the buildings erected on it. 

The developer is only putting up $6 million.  The developer could not get a bank to finance the deal. So, Mayor Ballard stepped up and put the taxpayers on the hook.

Hopefully the Google bot has enough clues in this blog entry to make sure that City Way and North of South both come up whenever City Way is the search term.  The taxpayers of Indianapolis need a good historical record about how huge a boondoggle this City Way (North of South) project is.

If you want more information about the City Way boondoggle, you can read my earlier blog entries "North of South - Details of Proposed Deal", "No-So Field of Dreams - Lie And They Will Build It", and "No-So Deal Worse Than Even I Thought" for the highlights.