Politically-Connected Law Firm Wins Indianapolis Towing Contract for California Firm

This should not come as a surprise.  If you have a company and you hire the right lobbyists, i.e those that work at Barnes and Thornburg, which law firm all but runs Indianapolis city government, you will win contracts.  The Indianapolis Business Journal reports:

Indianapolis will choose a San Francisco-based company to oversee city-ordered towing under a contract expected to be authorized Thursday afternoon.

Ryan Vaughn

AutoReturn is in line for a five-year contract for towing management services, pending approval by the Board of Code Enforcement.

The city issued a request for proposals in December that requested $1.5 million in annual guaranteed revenue, Department of Code Enforcement spokesman Adam Baker said. The money would come from fees collected from people whose cars are towed after accidents, abandonment or illegal parking.

...

Byran Burdick

City records show Brian Burdick of the law firm Barnes & Thornburg LLP lobbied on behalf of AutoReturn in 2012 and 2013. Mayor Greg Ballard's chief of staff, Ryan Vaughn, is a former Barnes & Thornburg attorney.

...Responses to the city's RFP won't be made public until Department of Code Enforcement Director Rick Powers signs a new contract, Baker said.

Translation:  We won't know which company had the best bid until the contract is signed when it's too late to do anything.  

Blessed Be the Whistleblowers; Governor Pence Continues to Advocate for Federal Media Shield Law

If I had a chance to share one piece of advice with Governor Mike Pence, it would be that in performing his job that he listens to and protects whistleblowers in state government.  They are his administration's eyes and ears in the far flung state bureaucracy.   They are not enemies; they are his greatest allies.  If a Governor is willing to have an open administration in which whistleblowers are free to come forward about wrongdoing they see, with the assurance their jobs will be protected, and the administration will investigate and act upon the information obtained, it is almost certain that the Governor's tenure will be scandal free.

Governor Mike Pence

Unfortunately whistleblowers in the Daniels' administration were treated as traitors to the cause.  Not only were they not listened to, they were fired or forced to resign by agency chiefs.  Inevitably a scandal would break out at the agency, such as the Department of Workforce Development, the Department of Transportation, or the Lottery Commission, concerning the very thing the whistleblower attempted to warn the Governor's Office about.  Fortunately for Governor Daniels' the blame for misdeeds in those state agencies never seemed to be blamed on his administration's failure to supervise or act on whistleblowing information.  Governor Pence can't count on being so fortunate.  He has far too many enemies on the left who will try to pin anything that goes wrong in state government on him.

Tuesday, we saw an example of what happens when whistleblowing is not heeded.  The problems with what was going on at the Indianapolis Land Bank were known by the Ballard administration.  Numerous complaints had been lodged.   Six months ago the Indianapolis Business Journal did a lengthy expose of the Land Bank's  practices involving selling the properties to a non-profit for a $1,000 to $2,000 only to be immediately flipped to a for-profit buyer for a handsome profit.  At the very best, taxpayers were being deprived of a fair return on property held by the public.  At the very worst, criminal activity was involved.  Either should have sparked an immediate investigation by the Mayor's Office and action to cease the activity.  Not only was such an investigation never conducted by the Mayor's Office, the Land Bank manager Reggie Walton apparently felt so certain he would not get in trouble Ballard administration officials weren't he, allegedly, took a $500 bribe after the IBJ story broke.

With different leadership, an investigation would have been ordered after the first credible allegation of problems at the Indianapolis Land Bank.   Whistleblowers would have been encouraged to come forward and their jobs protected.  Employees engaged in wrongdoing would be fired and/or turned over for prosecution.  Instead we now have a Mayor tainted by a scandal that could have been easily avoided.

Governor Pence should review Indiana's whistleblowing law for state employees and see if it shouldn't be made stronger.  He should also review how the law has been applied.  I have yet to see a state whistleblower, who has been fired or forced to resign, succeed in state or federal court.  When it comes to the termination of whistleblowers, judges are loathe to enforce constitutional free speech protections or the state whistleblowing law that is supposed to protect the rights of state employees to speak out about what they see.
When government employee whistleblowers find that their supervisors won't listen to them or they are fearful of losing their job if they come forward, they often turn to the media.  It is essential that reporters, including citizen reporters, i.e. bloggers, be able to assure the confidentiality of their sources.  Recently the Justice Department, without a court order, seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012.  While the action, an attempt to justify a leaker, was justified on national security grounds, it also had the possible effect of outing numerous other confidential sources. The effect of warrantless searches on news media organizations could have a devastating effect on the ability of those organizations to protect sources and gather information.

Fortunately, Governor Pence understands the importance of reporters being able to protect sources.  As a member of the U.S. House, Pence sponsored the federal media shield law designed to help the reporters protect sources.  While the First Amendment and case law provides some protections, Pence's bill would have increased those protections.  While the bill passed the House in 2007 and 2009, it failed to clear the Senate.

Jim Shella of WISH-TV reports that, although Pence is removed from the congressional battles over the shield law, he still strongly supports it:

When Congressman Pence fought for the law on Capitol Hill he faced opposition from both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration.  “The bill is not about protecting journalists,” he argued on the House floor in 2009. “It’s about protecting the public’s right to know.”

Now, as then, Pence argues that a free press is the only check on government power.  “I think the ability of the press to protect confidential sources,” he said, “is essential to the news gathering process.”

Exactly.  In the meantime, Gov. Pence's people should take a look at Indiana's media shield law, which only protects the traditional media.  The law (IC 34-4-6 et seq.) was written in 1998, before the new media, which plays out over the Internet, began to supplant the traditional media as a news source for many people.  It clearly does not apply to citizen journalists who publish material on their blogs every day, unless those bloggers are receiving an income for their work.

Colts Owner Jim Irsay Gives a Whole $25,000 to Oklahoma Tornado Relief; Promptly Issues Press Release Bragging About Miserly Donation

Jim Irsay, the owner of the Indianapolis Colts,, has pledged to match fans' contributions to the Red Cross for Oklahoma tornado relief up to a whole $25,000.   How generous of the millionaire made a billionaire by Indianapolis taxpayers.  Irsay's contribution of $25,000 might rebuild 1/2 of one cheap Oklahoma house. 

Of course Irsay couldn't make his contribution without issuing a press release because, well, he's that kind of guy.

Irsay giving $25,000 is like the average person on the street flipping a nickel into the Salvation Army bucket during the holiday season. Of course the average person on the street doesn't issue a press release bragging about making such a meager donation.

The Indianapolis Star's Responsibility for Allowing the "City's Culture of Corruption" to Exist

It has been entertaining to watch.  As a result of the indictment of employees in the city's land bank yesterday, the Indianapolis Star has sharply reversed direction, suddenly deciding that alleged corruption in Indianapolis city-county government is worth reporting about.  In addition to an excellent main article by Jon Murray and John Tuohy, columnists Matt Tully and Erika Smith weighed in.

Karen Crotchfelt, Publisher, Indianapolis Star

I don't blame the reporters as they are constrained in the subjects they can write about by their editors.  As columnists though, Tully and Smith enjoy more freedom to opine about the issues of the day.  Tully and
Smith have been afforded numerous opportunities to write about conflicts of interest and self-dealing in city government.  Instead they chose to write nothing critical.  In fact, both columnists have praised Indianapolis' pay-to-play culture that has resulted in so much corporate welfare and drained the city of resources to pay for basic services. Their answer to the latter is not to constrain corporate welfare, but to advocate raising taxes.  With regard to Erika Smith, the Star's municipal columnist, her obsession with writing columns promoting mass transit has apparently impaired ability to notice anything else going on in the City.

Some specific examples.  The City simply gave $6.35 million of the public's money to Keystone Construction, a major contributor to the Mayor, and which company employs a former Deputy Mayor, to build the Broad Ripple parking garage.  Keystone and its corporate partners get 100% ownership, 100% of the parking revenue, and 100% of the commercial rents. We, the public, get nothing.  Did Tully or Smith ever pen a column criticizing this deal?  Nope.

Then you have the ACS parking meter contract which locks the city in for the next 50 years to giving away 70% of the parking meter and ticket revenue to ACS and its corporate allies, recast as "ParkIndy."  The Mayor's attorney, Joe Loftus, and Council President Ryan Vaughn, were both lobbyists for ACS when the parking meter deal was proposed. Vaughn even cast the tie breaking vote.  Did the Star report critically on those conflicts, as well as the important details of the deal, including the provision which made it impossible to ever exercise the every 10 year cancellation provision, a comprise city leaders claimed protected taxpayers?  No.  Tully, however, did discuss the ACS deal in his column.  Of course, he didn't mention any of the conflicts or troubling details of the agreement.  He said the deal, in which the City gives away an estimated $1 billion in revenue over the next 50 years to a private company all for the "risk" of fronting $8 million for new meters, "makes sense." 

Jeff Taylor, Editor, Indianapolis Star

Yesterday, U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett, as he handed down five indictments, talked about Indianapolis having a "culture of corruption."  That culture only exists and grows when it is not exposed to the sunlight of public scrutiny. The chief source of that scrutiny is the daily newspaper.  While bloggers, weekly publications like the Indianapolis Business Journal and television stations can do some of the reporting on city government operations, there is no substitute for vigilant reporting by a daily newspaper acting.

The "culture of corruption" is a direct consequence of the Indianapolis Star choosing to abdicate its watchdog role to become a cheerleader for city government.  I reported on that troubling philosophy in February 2013 article I wrote:

In 2010, Star Media, owned by media giant Gannett, made what it claimed was a bold move
to shore up the falling circulation of the Indianapolis Star.  Karen Crotchfelt was appointed as publisher.  Earlier in the year, Jeff Taylor was appointed Editor in Chief.  Crotchfelt replaced Michael Kane while Taylor replaced long-time Editor Dennis Ryerson.

Under Kane and Ryerson's leadership the quality of the Star had declined dramatically.  In depth local reporting was dismissed. Most of the newspaper became AP articles seemingly published to fill out the every decreasing size of the newspaper. Instead of reporting critically, the newspaper had become a cheerleader for the local political and business establishment.   As the Internet boomed in popularity, people increasingly turned to blogs and other online material to find the objective, critical content about Indianapolis politics they so craved.

Enter Crotchfelt and Taylor.  From their opening comments it seemed they were oblivious to the Star's real problem - content.  Crotchfelt concentrated on improving technology while promising (threatening?) to continue with the content that the Star had been providing since before she took over.   She also talked about being a "partner" with the local community, a sign that she ascribed to the view that the role of the daily newspaper is to promote what the political and business interests of the City want, not to play the traditional role as a watchdog.

If the Star's leadership had allowed reporters to do critical stories on City Hall instead of using the paper to simply be a cheerleader for everything city leaders want to do, the environment that resulted in the Land Bank scandal might never have happened.

Ballard Administration's Preference for Younger, Inexperienced Managers

Over in the Twitter-universe, WTLC's Amos Brown asks the question why people so young were placed into such important positions within the Ballard administration.  The two city officials, Reggie Walton, 29, was head of the land bank and assistant assistant administrator of Indianapolis' Department of Metropolitan Development while John Hawkins, 27, was senior project manager for the agency.

The tendency of the Ballard administration to place younger, inexperienced people in key leadership positions is a phenomena I've written about before.  This is an April 2009 article I wrote:

The new blog Indianapolis Times reports that Deputy Mayor Nick Weber and Chief of Staff Paul Okeson are on their way out at City Hall.

That is not surprising news. Turnover in those types of positions happen a lot. What I find most disconcerting is the suggestion that current head of City Legal Chris Cotteril, a former Barnes & Thornburg attorney, might be taking over as Chief of Staff.

By far one of the weaker links in the Mayor's Office has been the poor quality of legal work and advice coming from City Legal, which I think is due chiefly to the failure of the Mayor to put into supervisory positions experienced attorneys. Chris Cotterill, had less than five years experience (I don't think any in litigation) when he was appointed head of entire City Legal, which is made up of approximately 27 attorneys, bigger than most law firms in town. Jonathan Mayes, who had two years experience, was appointed head of the litigation division of City Legal. As any trial attorney will tell you, there is no substitute for actual experience when it comes to litigation, even more so when you're supervising other attorneys involved in litigation. Now as someone with 21 1/2 years legal experience, I can't imagine supervising a team of trial attorneys when I only had 2 years of litigation experience.

I've been advised by friends that Cotterill is a good person and have no doubt that is true. But, the Mayor, as someone very inexperienced in politics and inexperience that is showing in virtually every move he makes, desperately needs experienced individuals around him who won't hesitate to give him honest political advice that challenges that of a Bob Grand, Joe Loftus and others who know their way around the 25th Floor and seem more interested in helping their clients than looking out for the Mayor's political future. Chris Cotterill does not appear to be the experienced, unconflicted advisor Mayor Ballard desperately needs. 

Cotterill being too inexperienced for the positions he received in city government is not an aberration.  If you look throughout city government you will often find younger, less experienced management heading up older, far more experienced employees.

Why the preference toward younger, inexperienced people in city management?  Very simple. People who are older and more experienced are going to be more independent-minded and question when they're told to do things that seem unethical or improper.  Younger people, who have only recently stepped onto the career ladder, are not going to question what they're told to do, especially when they're being told to do those things by the political power brokers who got them the job in the first place.

U.S. Attorney Hogsett Lambasts Indianapolis" "Culture of Corruption" As Questions Mount As to Why Administration Officials Failed to Act

In a press conference announcing the arrest of five individuals, including two city employees, in a bribery and kickback scheme involving the Indianapolis Land Back, U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett, said Indianapolis' "culture of corruption" would not be tolerated.



U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett

The comment was the first public recognition by an government official of the systemic corruption in Indianapolis that bloggers like Gary Welsh of Advance Indiana and others have written about for years.  While bloggers have often led the way in discussing the issue of corruption, the Indianapolis Business Journal and to a lesser degree, television reporters have done excellent stories broaching the subject. Meanwhile the Indianapolis Star and politicians have remained silent.  Until today.  At the press conference this afternoon, Hogsett stood up and told the truth, that there exists in Indianapolis a culture that is inviting to those who want to engage in conflicts of interest and make themselves and their friends rich at taxpayer expense.

Due to my work in the mortgage and real estate industry, I am familiar with scams involving property.  Most scams are so complicated lay people can't possibly understand them.  But this was one was remarkably simple.

The Indianapolis Land Bank acquires title to numerous abandoned properties in Indianapolis.  Under Indiana law, the properties are to be auctioned off with the high bidder receiving the property. But the law had an exception for non-profits which were allowed to buy the properties from $1,000 to $2,000 apiece.  The indictments allege that the Indianapolis Land Bank sold the property to nonprofit organizations which then sold them at much higher prices to investors.  The nonprofits and Walton, and some instances Hawkins, at the Land Bank, allegedly received a kickback.  Walton also, is accused of being a silent partner with one of the for profits companies that received property.

While it is certainly good to see the action Hogsett has taken on this case, the circumstances that led to the indictment of Department of Metropolitan Development Land Bank Director Reggie Walton and John Hawkins, a senior project manager for the city-county Department of Metropolitan Development and one-time special assistant to Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard, raise other questions.

It is difficult to believe that whistleblowers did not tip off the Indianapolis Mayor's Office about what was going on at the Land Bank.  But even if that didn't happen, in a November 3, 2012 article, IBJ reporter Cory Schouten laid out the details of what was going on at the Indianapolis Land Bank back.   That was 6 1/2 months ago.  That was plenty of time for Mayor Ballard to order an investigation in response to the story and make sure the heads of those responsible rolled.  That didn't happen.  Walton and Hawkins remained in their jobs until today when they were suspended them without pay.

There is unfortunately an explanation for why the Mayor and his staff failed to take action and it is not pretty...namely that what Walton now stands accused of doing isn't qualitatively different than what is going on throughout city government where officials, government contractors, and attorneys are using their positions to enrich themselves and their friends.   Yes, it is a "culture of corruption."  U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett got that right.

Mythbuster: Hurricanes and Tornadoes are Not Increasing in Number or Frequency

Over at the Civil Discourse Now blog, Mark Small as usual is up early spewing nonsensical nonsense:

We used to have real autumns, periods before winter, of several weeks, during which deciduous trees turned spectacular colors. Now we seem to go straight from summer to winter. Summers used to get hot around mid-July. The hottest time was in mid-August. Now we heat up in May.

The temperatures of the planet have increased more rapidly than at any time during human existence. Things become even more complex. With massive changes in temperatures have come chaotic changes in storms.

Yes---the huge tornado that hit Oklahoma last evening is an example of the effects of global climate change. The droughts and heat waves of the past ten years are part of the ecological shift caused by humans' efforts to spew crap out into the environment.

For 4.5 billion years this planet has cycled through short and long term heating cooling trends.  The short term trends last tens of thousands of years.  The long terms trends last hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.  A human being on this planet, who lives to say 80 year, will only see a tiny, tiny fraction of that time. The notion that that human being can use observation during his life to make long-term conclusions about the direction of the environment is, well, preposterous.

Of course, the alarmists prefer now to use the word "climate change" (actually "global climate change" sounds more ominous) instead of "global warming" because they know that the climate is always changing and thus they can never be wrong.  I refuse to take that bait about redefining the debate. They're talking about global warming...that's their claim.

Mark says we're heating up in May.  That's funny.  I almost had to turn on the heat this morning it was so cool.  Or let's forget that for most of the past nine months we've had below normal temperatures in Indianapolis.   Of course such short term looks at the weather as emblematic of long term trends is nonsense.  But if the alarmists are going to do it every time they want to try to prove global warming, they should expect those same tactics in return.

But what about the increase in hurricanes and tornadoes?  Isn't that proof global warming is happening, that we're wrecking the environment?

Well, here's the thing.  The data and scientists do not support the premise.
In a 2011 Fox News article:

A top official at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rejected claims by environmental activists that the outbreak of tornadoes ravaging the American South is related to climate change brought on by global warming.

Greg Carbin, the warning coordination meteorologist at NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma, said warming trends do create more of the fuel that tornadoes require, such as moisture, but that they also deprive tornadoes of another essential ingredient: wind shear.

“We know we have a warming going on,” Carbin told Fox News in an interview Thursday, but added: “There really is no scientific consensus or connection [between global warming and tornadic activity]….Jumping from a large-scale event like global warming to relatively small-scale events like tornadoes is a huge leap across a variety of scales.”

Asked if climate change should be “acquitted” in a jury trial where it stood charged with responsibility for tornadoes, Carbin replied: “I would say that is the right verdict, yes.” Because there is no direct connection as yet established between the two? “That’s correct,” Carbin replied.

The claimed increase in tornado and hurricane activity is simply not happening.  In a Forbes Magazine article earlier this month:

New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show the past 12 months set a record for the fewest tornadoes in recorded history. Not only did Mother Nature just set a record for lack of tornado activity, she absolutely shattered the previous record for fewest tornadoes in a 12-month period. During the past 12 months, merely 197 tornadoes struck the United States. Prior to this past year, the fewest tornadoes striking the United States during a 12-month period occurred from June 1991 through July 1992, when 247 tornadoes occurred.

The new tornado record is particularly noteworthy because of recent advances in tornado detection technology. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is able to detect more tornadoes in recent years than in prior decades due to technological advances. Even with such enhanced tornado detection capability, the past 12 months shattered all prior records for recorded tornadoes.
NOAA posted a list of the five “lowest non-overlapping 12 month counts on record from
1954-present.” Notably, each of these low-tornado periods occur since 1986, precisely during the time period global warming alarmists claim global warming is causing more extreme weather events such as tornadoes. 

 According to the Forbes magazine article, we've also set records for lack of hurricanes:

Hurricane inactivity is also setting all-time records. The United States is undergoing its longest stretch in recorded history without a major hurricane strike, with each passing day extending the unprecedented lack of severe hurricanes, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data.
It has been more than 2,750 days since a major hurricane struck the United States. This easily smashes the prior record of less than 2,300 days between major hurricane strikes.

Although global warming activists and their media allies often claim global warming is making extreme weather events more frequent and severe, virtually all extreme weather events are becoming less frequent and less severe as our planet gradually warms.

Also, as I reported earlier on my blog, a research meteorologist, who supports the anthropogenic global warming theory, did a 100 year study of Atlantic hurricanes expecting that they increased while warming increased. 
 
But, but I can hear Mark saying over his beer...."What about all those other events, the droughts, the fires, ....  

The "drought" claim as proof of global warming I find the most interesting.  Mark is being inconsistent by claiming increased droughts and increased tornado activity since moisture is required for a tornado.   Carbin, the "warming meteorologist" at NOAA, confirms this when he says that warming causes more moisture, i.e. "fuel" for tornadoes.  As Carbin correctly notes, the global warming theory is that the United States will receive MORE precipitation in the United States because of warming, not less. 

But is Mark right that we're having more droughts than ever?  Nope.  Again according to Forbes:

Soil moisture is in long-term improvement at nearly all sites in the Global Soil Moisture Data Bank. Droughts are less frequent and less severe than in prior, colder centuries. 

 And all those fires?  Forbes has an answer for that too:

The number of wildfires is in long-term decline despite a recent change in wildfire policy that no longer actively suppresses wildfires. Just about any way you measure it, extreme weather events are becoming quite rare.

Facts are inconvenient things.  It's so much easier to rely on anecdotal evidence to support the global warming alarmist theory than to rely on objective facts to support that theory.

Governor Pence Rightfully Reverses States' Support of Feritizer and Coal Gasification Plants

Gov. Mieke Pence

The construction industry in Southwest Indiana is apparently up in arms over the State reversing direction on the construction of Mount Vernon fertilizer and the Rockport coal gasification plants.

Eric Bradner of the Evansville Courier Press reports:

The news for workers in Southwestern Indiana’s construction trades couldn’t get much worse.

The last month has seen state policymakers move — for very different reasons — to scuttle two projects that each promised more than 2,000 construction jobs, plus hundreds more once they were up and running.

The Indiana General Assembly approved a tough, new regulatory measure that left developers of the proposed $2.6 billion Rockport coal-to-gas plant say that, save a Hail Mary pass in the state Supreme Court, leaves them no way to go forward.

And Gov. Mike Pence on Friday announced he has pulled the plug on state incentives intended to finance the construction of a $1.8 billion fertilizer plant at the Ports of Indiana in Mount Vernon.

Now, local economic development officials who badly wanted the jobs those projects promised to bring are left scratching their heads.

“It’s just kind of an interesting place we find ourselves in, where we’re turning down business,” said Greg Wathen, the president and chief executive officer of the Economic Development Coalition of Southwest Indiana.

...
The Rockport and Mount Vernon projects — both conceived under former Gov. Mitch Daniels and negotiated through his Indiana Finance Authority — fell under sharp criticism, for widely differing reasons.

The Rockport deal involved a 30-year guaranteed-purchase contract. The state government would buy the plant’s synthetic natural gas at a pre-negotiated rate, and then resell it on the open market, with 17 percent of all residential and commercial ratepayers’ bills bet on the deal earning them savings over its full term.

That prompted consumer advocates and utilities to complain. They pointed to a shale gas boom that they claim will provide abundant natural gas at prices that are lower and more stable than the nation has seen in recent decades.

The criticism of that Rockport deal was all about economics. The Mount Vernon fertilizer plant, meanwhile, is about national security.

Fatima Group, the Pakistani company that was financing the plant, came under criticism in December by a Pentagon official who said the company needed to do more to keep its product manufactured in Pakistan out of the hands of insurgents who were using it to develop improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan.

Pence froze that deal when he took office, and ultimately decided he wanted nothing to do with the company until the changes it pledged to make to its product and that product’s delivery have been tested by the United States.

While the Rockport coal gasification plant would undoubtedly create jobs, the question is at what cost would those jobs have been created?  The result of following through with the deal would have been that Hoosiers consumers of the energy produced would have been paying substantially higher than market rates for natural gas. Further, an examination of the deal certainly made it look like an insider deal that unfortunately became all too common in the Daniels administration.

With regard to the fertilizer plan, Gov. Daniels chose not to act on the very serious national security concerns about the company and its operations.  Not only was Fatima Group building the plant in Mt. Vernon, they were using Hoosier tax dollars to do it.  Gov. Pence rightfully pulled the plug on that deal.

While no doubt Gov. Pence strongly supports creation of construction job, he demonstrated in these two cases that he's not about to forget Hoosier taxpayers and national security in weighing the decision of whether to move forward with projects.

Broad Ripple Village Association Again Proves Itself to Be the Worst Neighborhood Association in the City

The Broad Ripple Village Association, which supported the parking garage monstrosity at the three way intersection of Westfield Avenue/Broad Ripple Avenue/College Avenue, as well as the elimination of two traffic lanes on Broad Ripple Avenue in favor of bike lanes, is at it again.  This time the BRVA is supporting another huge development just north of the aforementioned congested intersection.  Today the BRVA sent out an email on the subject:

IMPORTANT NOTICE: 

Broad Ripple Village Association

Special Public Meeting

Thursday,May 23, 2013 at 6:00 p.m.

Broad Ripple United Methodist Church (6185 Guilford Ave.) 

Proposed development by Browning Investments, Inc.

The Broad Ripple Village Association Board of Directors will host a Public Meeting on Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. at Broad Ripple United Methodist Church located at 6185 Guilford Avenue. The meeting will be held in the Sanctuary and is open to the public.

The goal of the meeting is to disseminate information regarding the proposed development of the former Shell Gas Station at 6349 College Avenue and the apartments nearby. The BRVA will invite representatives from the developer, City and Whole Foods to participate in a panel. The meeting will be moderated by the BRVA. Community feedback is very important and time will be available for Q&A.

 ...

So BRVA claims to be interested in the public's feedback on the project, but on the panel for the program, BRVA invites three representatives who support the project and none opposing it.  BRVA obviously has no interested in a balanced presentation on the subject.  Then again, I'm not sure the BRVA's Board of Directors has ever cared about what the people who live and work in Broad Ripple actually want.

Of course, one of the big issues being raised is Broad Ripple-based Good Earth having competition for the organic food market from Whole Foods.  To me, in a free market Whole Foods has every right to move in next door to Good Earth if it so chooses.  The problem is that this development is going to be subsidized with tax increment financing (TIF) dollars, i.e property taxes.  Our tax dollars should not be used to subsidize the profit margins of developers and already successful businesses.

For other unflattering mentions of the Broad Ripple Village Association on this blog, see:

Wednesday, April 10, 2013, Broad Ripple Village Goes from Being Congested to Being Congested Mess

Thursday, September 20, 2012, Battle Brews in Broad Ripple: Arts Community Wants to Make Historic Central Canal Towpath an "Arts Destination"

Tuesday, December 6, 2011, Broad Ripple Deserves Better Representation Than The Broad Ripple Village Association

Thursday, November 10, 2011, City Eliminates Two Broad Ripple Avenue Traffic Lanes to Add Bike Lanes

Gas Stations and Convenience Stores Sue to Sell Cold Beer in Indiana

Indiana's liquor laws made headlines yesterday.   The Indianapolis Star reports:

Want to buy a cold beer in Indiana?

Walk into a bar, restaurant or package liquor store and you can readily find a frosty brew to take home and quench your thirst. But head to a grocery store, gas station convenience store or pharmacy, and you’ll be taking home warm brews.

Convenience store owners say that just doesn’t make sense — and beyond that, they don’t think the state’s law is constitutional. For years, they have fruitlessly tried to persuade lawmakers to overturn the statute that limits who can sell carry-out cold beer.

Now, the Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, several store owners and a customer are suing Indiana in federal court to overturn what they are calling an outdated, antiquated and irrational state law.

“There is no logic in the current law that gives one class of retailer an exclusive right over another,” said Scot Imus, the association’s executive director.

Indiana has a hodgepodge of strict liquor laws passed in the 80 years since Prohibition ended, passed amid evolving religious, social and economic concerns. Now, Indiana is the only state that restricts the sale of cold beer.

Hoosiers also face the broadest restrictions in the country on the sale of beer, wine and hard liquor on Sundays. Only breweries, wineries, restaurants and bars are allowed to sell carry-out alcohol on Sundays. Efforts to overturn those restrictions failed yet again in the past legislative session.

The powerful package liquor lobby says the stores it represents would go out of business if the restrictions were overturned. Religious groups argue against increased consumption. Social organizations such as Mental Health America of Indiana say loosening restrictions would lead to more underage drinking and drunken driving.

In support of their claim, attorney John R. Maley points to a similar case last year in which a Kentucky federal judge ruled that prohibiting liquor and wine sales in grocery stores, gas stations and convenience stores violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The article goes on to quotes David Orentlicher, a former legislator and law professor at the Indiana University School of Law at Indianapolis, who said he expects the ruling to be overturned on appeal due to the very low standard - rational basis - states need to use their police powers to make these sorts of distinctions under the Equal Protection Clause.   Orentlicher is correct about the legal hurdle being high in this case.

As others have pointed out though, liquor stores, which benefit of course from Indiana's restrictions on the sale of cold beer, also face restrictions of their own in terms of the food products that they can sell.  Would these plaintiffs complaining about not being able to sell cold beer, be okay with allowing liquor stores to sell candy bars, soft drinks, chips and other products that have even large profit margins? 

Of course, that's a discussion about what is good policy.  Just because a law is bad doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Retroactive Repeal of Indiana's Inheritance Tax Raises Question Regarding Applicability

A week or so ago, Governor Mike Pence signed into law the state budget, including a repeal of the Indiana Inheritance Tax.  Indiana's Inheritance Tax is not a tax on the estate, but rather a transfer tax, i.e. a tax on the individuals who receive money or property at a person's death. Although it is a tax on the beneficiaries, the estate collects and remits the tax.  Because the amount of the exemption and tax rate depends on how close of a relationship between the beneficiary and the decedent, the tax can be very complex to figure if there are a number of bequests in the will.

In the bill, the Indiana Inheritance Tax is repealed retroactive to January 1, 2013. Clearly any person who died after that time, his or her estate will be governed by the new rules. However, given the minimum time an estate can be opened was reduced from five to three months several years ago, it is possible that a few estates opened in early 2013 have been closed and paid the inheritance tax for which a refund is now owed.

But what about the estates in which the decedent died before January 1, 2013 and the estates are still open?   The quick answer would be that the estate has to collect and remit the inheritance tax.

But is that right?  Again, the Indiana Inheritance Tax is not a tax on the estate.  It is a tax on beneficiaries who are transferred money and property at the conclusion of the probate proceeding.  I would argue that the inheritance tax should not be collected on any estate closed after 1/1/2013.  I expect, however, the Indiana Department of Revenue will choose a different interpretation.  Given how hard this tax can hit unmarried couples, I also expect this issue will end up in litigation.

The FBI and Its New Superpower - The Ability to Anticipate Bank Robberies

Gary Welsh of Advance Indiana reports on the new strange superpower of the FBI - being able to anticipate bank robberies before they happen:

As I was browsing the Chicago Tribune's website this morning, I noticed something familiar when I read the headline, "2 charged after FBI robbery probe ends with 1 suspect dead." Hadn't I just read a similar headline in Indianapolis within the past day? I went back to the Star's website and found this headline: "FBI identifies trio of suspects in Plainfield bank robbery." A sub-heading added, "Indianapolis man was shot, killed by federal agents; 2 others in jail." Two bank robberies occurred in separate suburban cities in neighboring states on the same day involving three armed robbers, and the FBI was at the scene of both robberies when they occurred to pursue the suspects, capturing two and killing one after a shootout. What are the odds?

The robbery reported by the Tribune took place in Richmond, a northwest suburb of Chicago.

Indeed, what are the odds?

This may simply be good detective work by the FBI, getting leads on planned robberies through legal methods and following up on those leads.   On the more sinister side, perhaps it is the feds, in the course of routinely monitoring people's cell phone conversations and emails, coming across robbery plans and responding accordingly.  The latter would suggest a search that is not legal and a breach of people's civil liberties that is disconcerting.

The Impact of Senate Bill 621 on Indianapolis-Marion County Politics

Today, Governor Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 621, the bill that significantly increases the Mayor's power over spending, including over separately elected county officials, eliminates the four at-large seats on the Indianapolis County-Council, eliminates the requirement for annual approval of the Mayor's appointments to director and deputy position,  increases the Mayor's appointments to the Metropolitan Development Commission and provides for central counting of absentee ballots in Marion and Lake Counties.

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard

In short, the bill substantially increases the power of the Mayor while decreasing the power of the elected City-County Council.  By eliminating the four at-large seats, it also improves the odds the Republicans can win the Council back in 2015 despite the increasingly Democratic numbers in the county.

It appears from his veto message that Governor Pence was most supportive of the provision giving the Mayor more power over spending.  While it's true that the Indianapolis Mayor would be given power comparable to mayors in other cities, the problem with that argument is that Indianapolis is not like the government in other cities in that we have consolidated city-county government.  Now separately elected county officials in Marion County, all Democrats will be at the mercy of the Republican Mayor when it comes to their spending.

It appears that Governor Pence was most bothered by the provision eliminating the four at-large seats, which, while it was presented as a cost-saving measure, is most certainly also aimed at giving the Republicans help in Democratic Marion County.

Brian Vargas, who is identified by the Indianapolis Star as a political consultant and former political science professor, is quoted as saying that Governor Pence had to sign the legislation to appease the GOP establishment which has never been enamored with Pence.  I'm not sure if that is a reference to state Republican leaders or local Marion County GOP leaders.  If the former is the case, the only provision that actually helps Republicans is the elimination of the at-large seats.  More than likely the political pressure came from the GOP Marion County leadership which seems more focused on giving Mayor Ballard more power while reducing the council's authority  As I've noted in these pages before, that's a shortsighted approach.  Long term, the Democrats are set to control every office in the county, including the Mayor's Office, and the only significant power Republicans will have is on the Council, either with a majority or, more likely, a significant minority.

What is not well understood by those not enmeshed in Marion County GOP politics is that a small cadre of Republicans control the power in the county.  They could not care less about conservative political ideas, like cutting taxes and reducing spending, and instead view government mostly as an avenue of making money.  That small group of leaders do not reflect the views of the GOP grass roots workers, or what's left of them, or the Republican electorate in Marion County.  Indeed that small group of leaders after 2007 chose to utilize their power that came with the Mayor's Office to enrich themselves and their friends rather than do the hard work necessary to rebuild the Marion County GOP into an organization that could win elections in an increasingly Democratic county.

Let's take a look now at the political impact of SB 621 in light of the approaching 2015 municipal elections.

SB 621 AS POLITICAL ISSUE:  Several Marion County Democrats have expressed the opinion thatmayorship and they've failed to exploit those issues. Whether it is giving the Pacers $33.5 million while libraries are closed and public safety is cut, whether it is entering into a 50 year parking meter contract that is worth  over a billion dollars to a company the Mayor's attorney and President of the Council lobby for, whether it is using the public's money to build a parking garage in Broad Ripple that a political contributor will own and collect all the revenue from, the Democrats have repeatedly dropped the ball on making a distinction between what they do and Mayor Ballard has done.   The most recent example of Democrats fumbling an issue was the proposed 50% increase in local car rental tax and 67% increase in admissions tax, 75% of which money that is raised goes to the CIB, which then of course gave Irsay $2 million to add two new suites to Lucas Oil Stadium.  Instead of making the Republicans own those tax increases by making them vote as a bloc, Democratic leadership on the council agreed to share blame providing an equal amount of votes to those provided by Republicans.

Indianapolis At-Large Councilor Zach Adamson

"power grab" in SB 621 will give them a winning issue in the 2015 municipal campaign.    First, I would point out that the Democrats have been repeatedly handed issues by Mayor Ballard throughout his

I don't buy that SB 621 is a good issue that will resonate with public.  I think the voters will view it as "inside baseball," with the possible exception of the loss of the at-large seats.  But even that can be quickly defended in a 30 second spot as a cost cutting measure.

Still SB 621 can be a winning political issue, but in another way.  It can be leveraged for the Marion County Democratic Party to raise funds and rally its base in Marion County.  The Democrats appeared to suffer from lethargy in the 2011 municipal campaign.  Well that's over with SB 621.  Expect local Democrats, unlike last election cycle, to go full bore attacking Ballard for everything.  And that's where the mistake was made before the 2011 election.  The book on political strategy is that you have surrogates (such as Democratic members of council and the Democratic county chairman) attack and define the incumbent mayor well before the election so that when a eventual challenger is nominated, he or she doesn't have to take the inevitable flack running hard negative ads against the incumbent.

BIPARTISANSHIP ON THE COUNCIL IS DEAD:   Local Democrats are angry that SB 621 was sprung on them without input and they were not made partners with the development of the changes contained in the bill.  They appear hurt and betrayed by Mayor Ballard pushing the changes, apparently without even notifying the council majority.  Expect that the Democrats support of Ballard's proposals to end.  Expect the rhetoric and challenges to Ballard's pro corporate welfare agenda to increase.

MAYOR'S RACE:   On a recent Sunday morning TV show, Mayor Ballard's political consultant Jen Hallowell commented that the Mayor would be running for a third term.  I don't buy it.  Greg Ballard has beaten the odds twice in Marion County, due almost completely to Democrats shooting themselves in the foot in 2007 and 2011.  The smart money is that Ballard doesn't risk a third attempt at challenging fate and accepts some sort of appointment or perhaps a position such as head of the American Legion.  On the Democratic side, they are almost certain to put up a heavy hitter and put everything behind that candidate due to the increased importance now of the Mayors office.  Democrats cannot afford to have a Republican Mayor unilaterally reducing the budgets of Democratic countywide officials.  Expect the Democrats to easily win the Mayor's race in 2015.

COUNCIL RACES:  Currently the council map draw Republican operative David Brooks on behalf of the lame duck Republican majority following the 2011 election is being challenged in court.  The challenge centers on statutory language that the council maps be redrawn by the council in the second year after the census, i.e. 2012.  Republicans claim to have satisfied that requirement by the council passing it in 2011 and the Mayor signing it in 2012.

I doubt the Indiana Supreme Court, where this case is eventually headed, will uphold the Republican lame duck map.  Most likely the Supreme Court will, once again, redraw the districts in a fashion similar to the way it was the Court ended up drawing the maps after the last census, i.e. with 25 compact districts with no regard to partisanship of those districts.

I think there is an outside shot that the 2011 Brooks map will be upheld by the Court.  That map was drawn using 2010 baseline numbers, to produce a 15-10 Republican majority, a narrow margin for Republicans as it was expected the at-large council seats would be won by Democrats.  I don't buy those numbers.  Because of reprecincting I was not able to check the 2010 baseline numbers compared to the district.  But I looked at the 2012 baseline, admittedly a bigger turnout that is better for Democrats.  Still the huge swings in the districts to the Democrats in those districts, often by double figures, suggest that perhaps the 2010 numbers are off:

District	2010 R Baseline	2012 R Baseline
1	41.8	35.31
2	51.98	48.85
3	55.12	50.38
4	57.37	51.47
5	55.57	50.71
6	52.38	43.37
7	20.91	19.45
8	23.98	19.53
9	16.45	14.78
10	22.35	17.75
11	15.48	15.36
12	42.42	33.96
13	17.96	13.12
14	23.25	16.29
15	55.85	45.3
16	51.55	41.2
17	18.08	15.39
18	60.82	52.36
19	52.09	43.61
20	65.79	59.12
21	50.43	42.48
22	55.69	44.75
23	65.65	60.13
24	64.18	58.87
25	70.28	66.18
Total	44.53	38.26
Result	15 R 10 D;	17 D 8 R

It appears that Brooks, charged with the task of getting 15 Republican districts in order to offset the inevitable 4 at-large Democrats on the 29 person council, had to cut the margins too closely on the Republican seats.  If he would have known that the 4 at-large seats were being eliminated, he could have drawn 13 more solid Republican districts and possibly assured the majority.

The Brooks map is not as bad for Democrats as Democrats seem to think it is.  There simply isn't enough Republican vote, in particular on the north side of Indianapolis, to create as many Republican districts there as Brooks did.  The numbers are sliced razor thin and the Republican majorities don't hold up when you look at the election results.   I think it almost certain that the Council majority will go to the Democrats in 2015.  But even if the Republicans somehow prevail or have a significant minority on the council, SB 621 will have significantly cut the council's power in dealing with a Democratic Mayor.

Bottom line, the political impact of SB 621, beyond 2015, is that the Republicans in Marion County lose while the Democratic Mayor elected in 2015 wins.

Black Voter Participation Rates Outstrip Whites for First Time

Amos Brown

This story reminds me of the race I ran in House District 94 in 2000.  Near the end of the campaign the Republican Party conducted a poll and found out I was dead even with incumbent first term Rep. Jeb Bardon. Frankly, I was skeptical of the poll as the NW Indianapolis district which had a very large percentage of African-American voters who I believed polled more independent than they would vote come Election Day.  Nonetheless, I do remember at the time one extraordinary detail of the poll which came back to haunt me that November.  The pollsters said that African-American voters in HD 94 were more likely to vote than whites who lived in the district.  And in November of 2000, the African-Americans in HD 94 did not like George Bush, turning out in huge numbers.

Apparently the trend the pollsters found in 2000 of black voters voting at higher rates than white voters has spread throughout the country.  Amos Brown, host of WTLC's Afternoons with Amos, reports:

In a stunning confirmation of the power of the African-American vote, the Census Bureau confirmed Wednesday that in the 2012 elections, African-Americans voted at a higher rate than non-Hispanic whites.  In [the presidential election of that year], two-third (66.2%) of eligible Black voters voted...[c]ompared to just 64.1% of eligible non-Hispanic whites.  The 2012 election was the first time African-Americans have voted at a higher rate than whites since the Census Bureau started publishing statistics [on the subject] since 1996.

Brown also reports that Indiana broke that barrier for the first time too, with 68.4% of eligible African-Americans voting while only 59.0% of white, non-Hispanic voters cast ballots.


Brown produces an interesting story which is worth reading. 

While I have no doubt that the trend Brown reports is taking place,  I am skeptical of particular turnout numbers that inevitably are calculated using registration figures.   According to figures I pulled off one source, Indiana has 4,335,069 registered voters out of a population of 6,312,520.  According to census figures 24.5% of people are under 18.  So that means that out of the population of Indiana, only 4,762,952 are people over 18 and eligible to vote.  Doing the math, we have a 91% registration rate in Indiana.  Some counties even report over 100% registration.  That points to the inevitable conclusion that Indiana's voter registration rolls are horribly bloated with names of people who are dead and or have moved and are registered multiple places

I don't trust particular numbers, but I do believe the trend Amos Brown points to is actually happening.  Black voters now outvote white voters and that will undoubtedly change the political landscape.

Will the Need for More Comprehensive Approach to Unigov Reform Be Reason for Veto of SB 621?

As of this late date, Indiana Governor Mike Pence is still considering whether to sign or veto SB 621, the controversial measure that would substantially increase the power of the Mayor's Office, and reduce the power of the Indianapolis City-County Council.

Should Governor Pence veto the bill, I think the focus of the veto message will be that, while Unigov needs an overhaul after 43 years, that overhaul needs to be comprehensive, and not take the piecemeal approach of SB 621.  I believe Governor Pence would send the legislature back tot he drawing board, while also emphasizing that Democrats need to be brought in as equal partners in the comprehensive reform of Unigov and not shut out as they were with SB 621.

One can argue whether  SB 621 represents good policy. But I don't think there is any question that a veto would be good politics for the Governor.  On that subject, the Indianapolis Star's Matthew Tully pens an excellent column, making several additional points about why a veto would be helpful for Governor Pence's political career.

IU's Athletic Director Condones Academic Dishonesty, Supports Coach Who Included Fake Academic Degree on Resume

Indiana University made other headlines this morning as it was reported by the Indianapolis Star that the new diving coach hired by the university received his college degree from a "diploma mill," Rochville University:

When Drew Johansen starts his job in July as diving coach at Indiana University, he will arrive with a raft of credentials: six Atlantic Coast Conference titles at Duke University and four Olympic medals as coach of the 2012 U.S. team in London.

But he also arrives with a puzzling and some say troubling entry on his resume: a bachelor’s degree in physical education from Rochville University — widely described as a diploma mill that issues bogus degrees through the mail for a few hundred dollars.

Fred Glass, IU Athletic Director

Johansen’s decision to include Rochville on his resume for a job that required a bachelor’s degree — and IU’s decision to overlook it — is being criticized by some who believe a bogus degree from a diploma mill sends a bad message to students and should possibly have disqualified Johansen as a candidate, irrespective of his international coaching acclaim.

The Star article then goes on to describe Rochville:

Concerns about Rochville are well-documented. Texas goes so far as to call it “an illegal supplier of educational credentials” and has made it a crime to use a Rochville degree with the intent to obtain employment. Last month, the Oregon Employment Relations Board upheld the firing of a state employee who had included a Rochville bachelor’s degree in his application years earlier.

“Rochville University is a mail order degree mill operating outside of the United States that offers requested degrees to applicants in exchange for a one-time payment,” wrote the administrative law judge in his decision. “It provides no physical or virtual education, no testing, and no skill or knowledge evaluation.”

How easy is it to earn a degree from Rochville? Four years ago, the institution mailed a master of business administration degree to a pug dog named Chester after its Vermont owner, who runs a consumer site, sent $499 and filled out paperwork stating that the dog had “life experience credentials” as a food taster.

IU Athletic Director Fred Glass though seems to think there's nothing wrong with this, except for the fact Rochville is "not accredited":

Glass added he did not consider Johansen’s use of the Rochville degree on his resume to be a misrepresentation or breach of academic integrity. 

“He represented that he had a degree from Rochville, which he does. There’s no misrepresentation there. It just turns out it’s not accredited and we understood and dealt with it appropriately.”

I don't have a problem with a non-college grad coaching college sports.  But I do have a problem with academic dishonesty, and with a university official who condones that dishonesty by excusing the fact that a coach he hired lied on his resume by claiming he was a college graduate.

I studied very hard and paid a lot of money for my undergrad and graduate degrees.  I also taught at the college level for over 20 years.  At IUPUI and the University of Indianapolis I have seen the work and sacrifice that students, often older students with significant other family and work responsibilities, endure to try to get their degrees.

It turns out that we could have just bought our degrees on-line.  That route is so much easier and cheaper.

What happens when a diver or other athlete gets in trouble for missing class?  How is Glass going to enforce the rules?  Those students, after all, could just point to the example of the diving coach who, according to Glass, committed no offense by simply buying his diploma on-line.  I guess Glass wouldn't have a problem with IU students buying term papers on-line either.

To see the full, rather lengthy Indianapolis Star article, click here.

Kinsey Phone App Allowing "Citizen Scientists" to Report Sexual Activity Returns

The Indianapolis Star reports on the return of the Kinsey sex app:

The Kinsey Reporter, a free app developed by the Indiana University School of Informatics and Computing and the Kinsey Institute to allow people to report data about sexual

behaviors, is back.

Last fall university officials decided to delay the launch of the project, worried about potential violations of privacy and protection of data.

 ...

The project allows “citizen scientists” to share information on experiences, such as sexual activity, flirting, fetishes and birth control use. This information will be available to the public and researchers at the Kinsey Reporter website.

A version of the app became available in mid-August. From that time until early September, when IU officials pulled it for privacy concerns, people had posted nearly 950 responses from around the world.

IU scientists say that the app will help researchers with data about issues that have proved challenging to study, such as how prevalent sexual violence is around the world.

This is a thoroughly stupid idea.   Like the original Kinsey study, it suffers from horribly flawed methodology.  You're going to have a bias in the type of people who want to download the app and enter this kind of information.  You also have a fact that, when it comes to sex, people lie...a lot.  You think a lot of young men and women are going to download the app to report they are not engaging in sexual activity?  The bias will be for those who are engaging in a lot of sexual activity or are at least willing to lie about it.

This amounts to little more than a self-selecting poll of sexual activity and as any political scientist or student of polls will tell you, self-selecting polls are completely worthless.   Any information Kinsey gathers from this app will be just that - worthless from a scientific standpoint.  You can bet though that the lack of scientific merit in the "research" won't stop Kinsey from extensively publishing the data it collects.

Governor Pence on Verge of Being Able to Reshape State Board of Education and Influence Common Core Debate

Governor Mike Pence

Little is known about the appointment and composition of the Indiana State Board of Education.  Yet the members play an important role in shaping education policy for the State of Indiana. That was most evident recently with the debate over the Common Core.  There is on the State Board of Education unanimous support for the implantation of Common Core.  It was recently reported that the Board members were expressing "frustration" with "meddling" by the Indiana General Assembly in the implementation of Common Core.  But things may well soon change on the Board.  Governor Mike Pence is on the precipice of being able to appoint a majority of the Board and thus change the direction of education in Indiana.

First some background of the State Board of Education.  Under Indiana law the State Board of Education consists of 11 members.  The chair of the Board is the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction. The other 10 members of the board are gubernatorial appointees serving staggered, four year terms.  Nine of the appointees are to come from the nine congressional districts while the final one is at-large.  Four have to be actively employed in schools and have an valid teaching license.

Now here is where it gets interesting.  Come June 30, 2013, Governor Pence will have the opportunity to appoint a majority of the board as the terms of six of the ten gubernatorial appointees expires. These include second congressional district representative Jo Blacketor, fourth congressional district representative Sarah O'Brien, fifth congressional district representative, Neil Pickett, sixth congressional district representative Michael Pettibone, seventh congressional district (Indianapolis) representative Daniel J. Elsener, and ninth congressional district representative James Edwards.

O'Brien, Pettibone and Elsener appear to be three of the four individuals employed with the requisite educational background.  Thus three of Governor Pence's six appointments would have to have a background in education that includes a teaching license.

Governor Pence could of course reappoint members to an additional four year term.  That's what Governor Daniels did with Blacketor, Pettibone, Elsener, and Edwards who all were originally appointed in 2005 by Daniels.

The Board's handling of the Common Core dispute strongly suggests at the very least the need for more diversity of thought on the board.  Personally I think Indianapolis' Andrea Neal, who has an education background and has penned excellent articles on education, including one criticizing Common Core, would be an excellent appointment to the State Board of Education.

It will be interesting to see whether Governor Pence looks to proceed with the status quo by reappointment of existing board members or whether he chooses to shake up things by putting his own appointees on the Board.

Will Push for Cricket Park End Mayor Ballard's Political Career?

Throughout seven 1/2 years, Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard has been able to escape serious political harm for a number of unpopular decisions and proposals.  Whether it was the 50 year parking meter privatization, $43,5 million handed out to the Pacers, raising numerous taxes and fees, giving $6.35 million to a politically connected developer to build a private parking garage/commercial building in Broad Ripple, or suggesting that Indianapolis establish a Chinatown, Mayor Ballard has always managed to escape having the public connect him with unpopular policies and questionable priorities.  A lot of that was due to the fact that the Democrats mysteriously stayed on the sidelines, abdicating the role of the loyal opposition, refusing to put the blame for those

This time though it appears that the Mayor Ballard - by continuing to push for a World Sports Park for cricket enthusiasts, funded with at least $6 million of Rebuild Indy money - has handed the Democrats an issue they won't be afraid to exploit come 2015.   No one, including the public and Republicans and Democrats on the Indianapolis City-County Council, understand the Mayor's bizarre fascination with the sport of cricket.  His steadfast decision to spend $6 million dollars for the park, at a time when city budgets are being cut and the murder rate is soaring, is inexplicable.

As reported here as well as elsewhere, another American city, Lauderhill, Florida, attempted what Mayor Ballard suggests - economic development through cricket and other sports not popular in the United States, but popular with some immigrants, and failed spectacularly, so much so that the city is spending millions to repurporse the playing fields to accommodate sports more popular with Americans.

Richard Kaplan, the Mayor of Lauderhill had this warning for cities like Indianapolis that attempt to follow Lauderhill's lead:

"It's been told to me that [USACA] is trying to get other cities in the United States to build facilities that could be accredited," Kaplan said. "I will tell you that I know most of the mayors in the country that may deal with this thing, and I presume they're gonna talk to me about how it turned out in Florida. It isn't gonna be a positive review. I would assume that any area that is doing due diligence on working out the economic viability are going to look at what presently exists, in which case they're going to come and take a look at what happened here, and they're gonna ask what happened."

"It's being utilized a little bit by some Associate members and developmental teams for the ICC. It's [also] being used by some private groups from American College Cricket, but not one of those events puts anybody in the stands. It doesn't sell one ticket. I don't need a multi-million dollar stadium with 5000 permanent seats to sit there with nobody using it. I can understand the county's point that somebody needs to use it. It's a wasting asset."

This warning though has not deterred Mayor Ballard one bit.  Next up today in a public meeting at 1 pm, the Board of Public Works is set to approve the awarding of a $2.4 million bid to a company called Renascent, Inc. to help construct the "World Sports Park."  While plans are to spend the taxpayers money on this dubious venture, administration officials are working behind the scenes to get the Indianapolis City-County Council to repeal the local homestead tax deduction, therefore increasing Indianapolis residents' property tax bills.

I remember meeting during Ballard's first term with an official who had left that administration.   He openly talked of what he perceived as a major character flaw in the new Mayor, the tendency to lock onto a decision early on and then block out information and critics which might suggest a need to reconsider that decision.  That appears to precisely be what is going on with his cricket decision.  The decision has been made.  He simply isn't going to listen to any criticism of his idea.

Returning to the premise that cricket might help the Democrats defeat Mayor Ballard in 2015, I frankly don't believe, contrary to what his consultant Jen Hallowell has publicly stated, that Ballard will run for re-election.  Certainly by 2015 the Democrats will have their act together and field a stronger candidate who won't shy away from attacking Ballard on those issues on which he is so vulnerable.  Ballard would be foolish to attempt to try to beat the odds in and increasingly Democratic Marion County a third time.  As far as other political opportunities, I don't see Ballard, with his liberal spending and taxing background, having a chance to win the Republican nomination to a statewide office. I think his career as an elected official ends on January 1, 2016.  Appointments to various offices are likely to follow, however.

Today's Political Card Features Special Congressional Election Involving Disgraced Former Governor Versus Sister of Comedy Central Show Host

This would normally be a primary election day for many states across the United States, including, Indiana.  But one year, every four years, the polls remain closed as everyone celebrates a year's break from politics.

Gov. Mark Sanford

Well, not everywhere.  If you look hard enough you can find elections in a few states and this year you could find a very interesting special congressional in South Carolina.  CNN reports:

Charleston, South Carolina (CNN) -- Take a former Republican governor whose political career was left for dead along the Appalachian Trail after an infamous affair.

Add a Democratic candidate best known as the sister of Comedy Central show host Stephen Colbert.

Factor in the nearly $1 million spent by national Democratic groups, and toss in polling which indicates the contest, in a district held by the GOP for over three decades, is a toss-up, and you get a special congressional election that's captured national attention.

Voters in coastal South Carolina will decide Tuesday who will fill the vacant U.S. House seat in the state's 1st Congressional District. The two leading candidates on the ballot are former two-term Gov. Mark Sanford, who's seeking political redemption as he runs for the seat that he once held for six years, and Elizabeth Colbert Busch.

"People at the end of the day say, 'Look, you're an imperfect human being but at the end of the day, we all are.' The idea that having somebody who's failed in a chapter of his life still represent me is again something people felt comfortable with," Sanford told CNN.

And he knows redemption is in sight.

...

Sanford was in his second term as governor in 2009 when he disappeared from public view for several days. At the time his staff claimed he'd been hiking the Appalachian Trail. He later admitted that he was actually in Argentina, seeing the woman with whom he was having an affair. He's now engaged to that woman.

The episode sank any hopes Sanford had of making a bid for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. Sanford and then-wife Jenny were divorced in 2010. He finished his second term as governor in January 2011, after being censured and fined tens of thousands of dollars for ethics violations, exiting to what many thought would be political obscurity.

But he's back, beating out 15 other candidates earlier this year to win the Republican nomination. And even with all his political baggage, he was considered the favorite in the race until last month, when court documents revealed his ex-wife had filed complaints against Sanford for trespassing on her property.

Sanford told CNN that he didn't want to leave his sons home alone while their mother was

Elizabeth Colbert Busch

away. He's scheduled for a court appearance two days after the election.

Not long after the trespassing story broke, the National Republican Congressional Committee announced it was pulling out of the race and national Democratic groups announced they were throwing more money into the contest.

And National Democratic groups jumped in. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and independent pro-Democrat House Majority PAC combined have dished out nearly $1 million to defeat Sanford.

The two groups, as well as Colbert Busch, have highlighted the affair. At their only general election debate, Colbert Busch, an official with Clemson University's wind turbine drive testing facility, brought up Sanford's 2009 secret trip to Argentina to see his mistress.

"When we talk about fiscal spending and we talk about protecting the taxpayers, it doesn't mean you take that money we saved and leave the country for a personal purpose," she said sternly, looking directly at her opponent on stage.

And her campaign went up with a TV commercial which slammed Sanford for using "tax dollars to visit his mistress in Argentina, disappeared for a week leaving no one in charge, betrayed all who trusted him, then lied to cover it up. Mark Sanford, it's a question of character."

The DCCC and House Majority PAC have also spotlighted the affair in their final ads.

To see the rest of the lengthy article, click here.

In an op-ed, CNN's John Avlon opines as to why a Democrat could win the 1st Congressional District that hasn't been held by a Democrat since 1981.  That's not exactly a reach as Colbert Busch appears to have a comfortable lead in the polls now.  While Avlon articulates shifting demographics as a reason for a Colbert Busch victory, attempting to extrapolate that particular conclusion from this particular race, which features candidates extremely well-known and one whose character flaws have been the subject of many jokes of late night comedians, appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking.  Gov. Sanford will lose this election.  South Carolina Republicans failed to unite behind an alternative to Sanford and for that they pay the price by losing a solidly Republican seat.