Reflections on Election Day

I've had a little rest and relaxation since last week and am back to blogging.  Before I move off Election Day, though, I'd like to share some random thoughts from working the polls last Tuesday.

Turnout was great !  We got over 50% and the precinct we shared the site with got over 60%.

Although voters were focused, there wasn't the same level of anger evident four years ago.

The yellow postcards telling folks where their polling site was located were a hit.  Many people brought them along, and in one particular case it helped resolve a voter registration issue so that person could vote a regular ballot.

People rely on the BMV to change voter registration at the same time as they change the address on their driver's license.  The BMV is not to be trusted with this, as they time and time again drop the ball on the voter registration.  Last Tuesday we had at least a dozen people who thought all was well after dealing with the BMV.  Not so.  If you ever try to change your voter registration through the BMV - make sure you get a receipt from them showing that effort.  Keep the receipt.  No matter how you try to change your voter registration take heed of the following:  If you do not get a card in the mail within two months from Voter Registration, stating your name, your address, and your voter number, CALL Voter Registration and inquire.  Their number is 327-5040.  It is best not to wait until Election Day to try to resolve these issues, as you very well might be denied the right to vote because you are not properly registered.

I prefer days when we have a constant stream of voters to days when few show up to the polls.

I dislike the way the County Parties use the process to gather their information on Election Day.  The Rs sat someone at the 'challenge table' (we had no challengers) who kept their voter call list updated as well as inquiring as to phone numbers.  This held up the line at times.  The Ds, too cheap to pay someone to sit at the challenge table, got the law changed so that the Clerk may keep tabs on who has voted.  The Clerk is a busy person on Election Day, checking voters in, checking IDs, initialling ballots, and referring issues to the Judges and/or Inspector.  Especially on busy voting days, this is more than enough to keep track of and screening another list for a voter's name ties up the line.

I prefer the voting machine that you feed the paper ballot into, as it leaves the paper trail.   The touch screen voting machine leaves no way to double check the voter's intention.

We have a great crew in DE-11 and DE-16.  Many of us have worked together for nearly a decade.

The day is usually a social one - those days when you get few problems to resolve, anyway.  You see folks you know and get to catch up a bit on what's been happening.  Its nice.

Beth White has done an outstanding job with elections.  Every year it seems to get just a bit smoother and just a bit less complicated.  The biggest disappointment among most voters this year, was that we ran out of 'I voted, I count' stickers.  I have to say I'm surprised at how really popular those stickers are.

About 10% of our voters chose early voting - with slightly more doing it in person at City Hall than through an absentee ballot sent through the mail.

Its nice to see young people serving at the polls.  Those of us who have served a while need replacements.  If that might be you, let your County Party or the Election Board know of your willingness to give it a try.  You just might like it. 

Election Day is a long day, yet a satisfying one.  We do something important - make sure voters participate in a fair election, with the least amount of delay to the voters as we can manage.

Do your part - VOTE !!!

Polls are open from 6 am to 6 pm.  Be in line by 6 pm and you can vote.

You know the rule : If you don't vote, you don't get to complain !


Check with the Voter Information Portal to find your polling location and to check your registration.

Letter to the Editor Gets it Right - Mayor Gambles With Public Safety

Today's IndyStar has a letter to the editor that gets it exactly right when it comes to the Mayor's veto of funding for County Offices.  Here's the letter:

We are Indianapolis workers, public servants, faith and community leaders, and we are willing to urge Mayor Greg Ballard to fund the services that keep Hoosiers safe. On Oct. 26, the mayor used political maneuvering to slash public safety funding at the 11th hour after the City-County Council reached an agreement on the budget with bipartisan support. This stunt might win the mayor points with his donors, but it doesn’t keep our community safe or help our city move forward.

As the crime rate in our city continues to increase, Mayor Ballard is trying to force our community to accept funding cuts for essential public safety services. The mayor is cutting funding that helps pay to process or defend those accused of crimes, process crime scenes, investigate deaths, operate the courts, run the jails and provide other public services. We believe that the mayor’s unprecedented action to cut these funds is wrong and are troubled by City-County Council leadership’s allegation that his action was illegal.

As residents of Indianapolis and leaders in our community, we urge Mayor Ballard to reconsider his decision before our city suffers the consequences. Safety should be a priority for our city government. We can’t afford to gamble with our security or the services our community depend on.

Chrystal Radcliff
NAACP, President of Greater Indianapolis NAACP Chapter

Nancy Holle
President, Community Faith and Labor Coalition

Rev C. L. Day
President, Concerned Clergy

Joanne Sanders
National Vice President, Coalition of Labor Union Women

Brett Voorhies
President, Central Indiana Labor Council (AFL-CIO)

Amy Shackelford
Lead community organizer, Jobs with Justice

Jennifer Disla
Indianapolis Director, SEIU Local 1

Double Check Your Polling Site & Your Voter Registration For Tomorrow

The Election Board website has an awesome app that everyone should take advantage of - especially if you have not vote at all yet this year.  Last year the precinct boundaries were moved and you may not live in the same precinct you used to.  In addition, there are normally some changes of polling locations simply because new sites become available and/or old sites become inadequate in some way.

This app is called the Voter Information Portal.

If you enter only your address, you can get a copy of the ballot you would receive tomorrow, the address of your polling location, and a mapping function that will give you driving directions as well.

If you enter your birthday, as well, you will also be able to review your voter registration information.  If there is a problem, you will have a little more time to get it worked out so that you can vote a regular ballot at the polls tomorrow.  Any problems, call 327-VOTE (327-8683).

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.

Mayors' Budget Veto Just May Be About Tax Increases - Its Certainly Not About A Balanced Budget

Mayor Vaughn usually pulls the strong arm stuff out of view of the public.  Threats, horse swapping, calling on Republican unity even when distasteful, cajoling with the greedy and ambitious.

Now his tactics are in full view with his veto of the balanced Council budget and his denunciation of the $15 M PILOT from the CIB, that leaves the door open for (gasp!) recruit classes for IMPD and IFD.  How awful of the Democrats !

Its not about the fiction floated by the Vaughn administration that the Council's budget is not balanced - because it certainly is.  For those readers who are number averse, just skip the rest of this paragraph and join me in a few sentences.  The Mayor's introduced budget spends $1.13 B while the Council's passed budget spends $1.12 B.  The Mayor's budget takes in revenues (excluding property taxes) of $676 M while the Council's budget takes in revenues (excluding property taxes) of $673 M.  They both raise $351 M in property taxes.  The Mayor spends down $106 M from fund balances while the Council spends down $99 M from fund balances.  None of the $15 M PILOT from the CIB, passed by the Council and opposed by the Mayor, is part of these numbers.

One quick aside - While the Mayors pretend to be disgusted by the one time infusion of the $15 M PILOT to cover operating expenses, they eagerly dipped into the downtown TIF for $30 M for the Pacers and $40 M to make ends meet in this year's budget AND have another $10 M to be used for next year's budget.  So, don't be buying their sudden alarm at the PILOT - its all an act.

Mayor Vaughn and his ally, Mayor Ballard, really really really wanted the Council to eliminate the Homestead Credit, which would save the City-County $8.7 M but foist $3.5 M in lost revenue on the various school districts in the County.

The Mayors really really really want more TIFs so that they have more slush funds to work with, even though they mean higher taxes for all of us and greater revenue losses for IPS, in particular.

There are two new taxes that will be on the table in the spring - increases of the car rental and admissions taxes are the last bits of the old CIB bailout from a few years ago.   The Mayors will want those to pass a Democrat controlled Council.

There will be an announcement soon of some sweetheart deal with the Pacers - the only question remains as to how much more of our tax money will be going to them instead of to fund police and fire protection, schools, libraries, IndyGo and the rest of services that impact most of us on a daily basis.

There is the push for a specific mass transit plan that spends more getting Hamilton County transit than it does on IndyGo.  The Mayors will want all on board to lobby for a tax increase public question on the 2014 ballot.

And, I grow more and more wary of an income tax hike being lobbied.  Councillor Ben Hunter has become the spokesperson for Vaughn in open Council meetings of late.  He pushed against the elimination of the Homestead Credit in committee (and voted against it there).  However, once the budget hit the floor of the full Council, he was all over the big bad Democrats for realizing, but not responding to, the impact keeping the Credit would have on the Council's lobbying 'on the other end of Washington Street'.  He also brought in the disingenuous and false arguement that the Credit amounted to poverty level wage earners subsidizing the mansions of the rich.

A push for income taxes split by workplace as well as residence would be welcome.  But the pushback from Senator Luke Kenley's home County, plus other donut counties, would be massive.  What I fear is a push for higher income taxes to be paid by residents of Marion County.

To make that work with the public, you would have to see exactly what we are  now seeing - an underfunded public safety budget that threatens to degrade the already low numbers of officers and firefighters.  So, the Mayors just may have a stake in not solving the recruit class problem, and not paying the raises that they agreed to in the IMPD and IFD contracts.  They just may have a stake in having the Feds claw back the COPS grant money spent here, because our officer number dropped below agreed to figures.

Its not that these are easy times; they are not.  But the Great Recession will pass and the income tax coffers will rise.  There are some, though, who would not want to waste a perfectly good crisis by simply making it through to the other side with the same resources, when you can use it as an excuse to fatten those resources.

The short leash created by the Mayors' vetoes of the Council budget can be used each time the Mayors want one of their taxes passed, or one of their issues lobbied, or one of their TIFs fully bonded and uncomplicated by TIF reforms.  That leash can be yanked when the Pacers deal becomes public and money flows from resources that should go to help all of us to instead be diverted to some of the wealthiest individuals in our area.  And, the leash will keep the Democrats from spending any money on that recruit class nonsense.  The PILOT money can just sit there an rot, instead.

This melodrama, created by the Mayors vetoes, never was about a supposedly unbalanced budget.  It certainly is about control of the Council.  How many times this leash will be yanked is up in the air.   But, beware - its going to cost all of us.

Full Council To Meet Thursday - Mayor's Veto of Budget & Parking Ticket Maximums To Be Considered

City-County Council President, Maggie Lewis, has called a special meeting of the Council for this Thursday, November 1, at 6:30 pm.  November 1 is the last day that the any unit of government can pass a budget, set a property tax levy (amount of money to be raised from property taxes), and set a property tax rate.

The Mayors used the line-item veto in a number of sections of the budget ordinance passed by the Council on October 15, by a vote of 18-11.  Of course, Mayors Vaughn and Ballard have not chosen to line item veto anything that would interfere with their collection of property taxes from the good citizens and property owners of Indy.  Nor have they interfered with their ability to discharge about $100 m in property tax revenues collected in TIF districts.  Nor have they scaled back the obscene raises for favored folks in the Administration, including Vaughn himself.

No, they used the line item veto to keel haul the Council for its audacity in actually passing a balanced budget stained with the sin of it not being the Mayor's budget.  So, the Mayors have deliberately cut revenues without cutting spending - creating an actual unbalanced budget.  They want the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance to name the places where the hatchet shall land.

The Mayors line item vetoed all $652,654 for character 3 expenses of the Council office.  They vetoed the $31,767,652 allocation of County Option Income Taxes to the County General fund.  They eliminated the creation of the special fund for recruit classes and officer training.  And, they eliminated the allocation to the rainy day funds of any unanticipated additional revenue that might come in during 2013.

As President Lewis notes in her letter to the Council:

In light of the Mayor’s recent veto of separate items of the budget, specifically the appropriation to the Character 03 portion of the 2013 City-County Council Budget, the following responsibilities of the Council will be affected:

*Payment to the General Counsel to the Council;

*Payment to the Minority Counsel;

*Payment to ISA for computer and telephone services;

*Payment of other Information Technology;

*Payment for legal advertising and notices of Council and committee meetings, fiscal ordinances,

and other special Council-related business;

*Payment for copying and printing services provided for any correspondence to Councillors, City-

County Administration and agencies, constituents, media, etc.;

*Payment of office lease at the City-County building and other related charges;

*Payment of code book subscription to update city ordinances and make available to the public;

*Payment of Councillor conference expenses; and

*Payment of any other contacts and services as deemed necessary by the Council

Elimination of the funding for this Character is in direct violation of IC 36-3-4-8.5. Consequently, as Council President, I have determined that a special full Council meeting will be held on Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 6:30 pm in the Council Chambers. The purpose of this meeting is to override the Mayor’s veto so that the Council may conduct the business of the people and serve its constituents beginning January 1 of 2013.

Please note that the other items included in the veto will appear on the agenda as well. However, each item will be voted on individually and to the discretion of each Council member. Thank you.

IC 36-3-4-8.5 says:

IC 36-3-4-8.5
Employment of attorneys or legal research assistants
Sec. 8.5. (a) A clerk may hire or contract with competent attorneys or legal research assistants on terms the clerk considers appropriate.
(b) Appropriations for the salaries of attorneys and legal research assistants employed under this section shall be approved in the annual budget.

The referenced clerk is the Clerk of the City-County Council.

In an earlier press release, Lewis noted that the Mayor does not have legal authority to veto any component of the budget of any Constitutionally established office (see Advance Indiana's blog entry "Ballard Budget Veto Gives New Meaning To 'Its My Way or the Highway'")   IC 36-3-4-14(b)(1) says:

 (b) All ordinances and resolutions of a legislative body are subject to veto, except the following:
(1) An ordinance or resolution, or part of either, providing for the budget or appropriating money for an office or officer of the county provided for by the Constitution of Indiana or for a judicial office or officer.

Article 6, Section 2, of the Indiana State Constitution says:

Section 2. (a) There shall be elected, in each county by the voters thereof, at the time of holding general elections, a Clerk of the Circuit Court, Auditor, Recorder, Treasurer, Sheriff, Coroner, and Surveyor, who shall, severally, hold their offices for four years.

Article 7, Section 16 says:

Section 16. Prosecuting Attorneys. There shall be elected in each judicial circuit by the voters thereof a prosecuting attorney, who shall have been admitted to the practice of law in this State before his election, who shall hold his office for four years, and whose term of office shall begin on the first day of January next succeeding his election. The election of prosecuting attorneys under this section shall be held at the time of holding the general election in the year 1974 and each four years thereafter.

That leaves all $31.7 million of the vindictive cuts made by our Mayors line item vetoes to fall on the budgets of  the following offices - each office is followed by the amount of money originally budgeted to come from the County General fund targeted by the Mayors, which is followed in parentheses by the total budget for that office:

Public Defender $17.6 m ($18.0 m)
Community Corrections $3.4 m ($9.5 m)
Forensic Services $5.9 m ($6.9 m)
Cooperative Extension $0.8 m ($0.8 m)
Assessor $5.2 m ($7.4 m)
Election Board $1.3 m ($1.3 m)
Voters' Registration $1.1 m ($1.1 m)

aggregate $35.3 m from the County General fund and a total budget of 45.0 m

Curiously enough, it is not clear what the elimination of allocation of any excess funds would really do.  The money must reside somewhere in the City-County coffers in some fund or another.  Likely the point was to keep the $15 m PILOT from the CIB from the City's rainy day fund specifically.  Still, the Council had not appropriated any of that money anyway.  So, I surely can't see any logic in scratching this line out.  But, vindictiveness knows only its own logic.

Also on the agenda for November 1, is Prop 315, which was vetoed entirely by the Mayors.   This proposal would allow for only one parking ticket per violation per day and alter the process for requesting a hearing on any particular ticket received.  The Council voted 18 -11 to pass this proposal at the October 15 meeting of the Council - with all Democrats plus Republicans Sandlin and Scales voting in favor and the remaining Republicans voting no.

The budget was voted on in two parts due to conflicts of interest by Lewis and Adams.  The Assessor's office budget passed by a vote of 25-2-2, with Republican Councillors Lutz and Sandlin casting the no votes and Lewis and Adams abstaining.  The remainder of the budget was passed by a vote of 18-11, with all Democrats plus Republicans Holliday and Scales voting for, and all of the rest of the Republicans voting no.

This budget process appears to be the energizer bunny of budget processes - it keeps going and going and going.  On November 1, 6:30 pm, public assembly room, city-county building, the Council will take up the issue of a veto override.