This morning Indianapolis Star columnist John Ketzenberger opines about the voter referendums contained in the recent budget bill and suggests they reflect a change in the legislature's attitude regarding what we who teach political science refer to as "direct democracy," i.e. voters voting directly on issues. He suggests Sen. Luke Kenley, head of the Senate Finance Committee, is pushing the referendums as a way of slowing down such projects.
In the column, Ketzenberger talks about the proposal for a new Wishard facility and suggests it is unclear whether the Marion County Clerk will have to pick up the cost or Health and Hospital Corporation which runs Wishard Hospital. But Health and Hospital is a municipal corporation. Aren't we really simply talking about which pocket the money is coming from? Ultimately the taxpayers are paying either way.
While it is a good column, Ketzenberger glosses over one critical fact - the timing of the Wishard referendum. In a special election only involving the Wishard referendum, voter turnout is going to be incredibly low. We will be lucky to have 10% turnout. That lowered turnout plays right into the hands of those favoring the referendum. The people who are going to be most motivated to go to the election out are those who directly benefit from the project, such as the people who would work at the new facility. Taxpayers who will feel the impact in higher property taxes down the road don't have the same motivation to go to the polls to try to defeat the measure. (It should be noted that the referendum supporters are claiming it won't result in higher taxes - apparently the facility will be paid with money plucked from a money tree.) In a regular election, there would be a lot of people showing up to vote for candidates who would have gone further down the ballot to vote against the referendum.
The legislature could have easily put off the Wishard referendum until the 2010 election and saved taxpayers the estimated $1.2 million to put on a special election. There is no emergency that would have required that the referendum election be held in the Fall of 2009, the only year in the four year election cycle when there is no election scheduled. In fact, it might actually be easier to get this project approved in a very low turnout referendum election in an off-year than it would be to have to go through the Indianapolis City-County Council. In a regular election year, I would not say that.
One thing you can bank on is that the off year referendum election is a deliberate political strategy by Health and Hospital Corporation and its lobbyist Barnes & Thornburg (which includes Councilor and State Senate candidate Ryan Vaughn) to sneak a fast one by the taxpayers.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Justice Ginsburg Said That Out Loud?
Gary Welsh over at Advance Indiana picks up on an unbelievably bigoted statement uttered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in support of abortion rights. Welsh begins his observation:
The highlighted comment of Ginsburg is exactly the sort of sentiment that led Indiana to be one of the leading states in adopting the ideas of later discredited eugenics movement during the first part of the 20th century. Along those same lines, Adolph Hitler hauled off to concentration camps millions of Jews, handicapped, homosexual, physically and mentally disabled and others that Hitler deemed to be "inferior" to the "Ayran race." Now 64 years after uncovering the tragedy in those concentration camps, we have a sitting Supreme Court justice spouting the same elitist, bigoted ideas. Ginsburg, who is Jewish, should know better.
That there are abortion supporters whose opinion on the subject are driven by racism and classism is not exactly surprising. However, even the least media-savvy abortion proponents have learned to keep those views to themselves. Here we have the a Supreme Court justice saying out loud a bigoted statement that Archie Bunker would applaud.
I like Welsh do not believe the media will pick up on the story. This is one area where there definitely is a double standard. If Justice Antonio Scalia or Justice Clarence Thomas would have uttered such a statement, there would be a media firestorm and demands that the justice resign. But the bigoted statement came from a white liberal. Let's see if the mainstream media even picks up on it.
Abortion opponents often claim that Planned Parenthood has racist origins as a plan by wealthy, well-educated white Americans to prevent poor women and, in particular, poor African-American women, from bringing more children into thisSee the rest of the Welsh's observation by clicking here.
world. In an interview with New York Times' magazine, Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg makes a stunning admission about her view of abortion at the time Roe v. Wade was decided legalizing abortion, which essentially confirms anti-abortionist suspicions of liberals' rationale for legalizing abortions and making them accessible on demand:
"Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong."
The highlighted comment of Ginsburg is exactly the sort of sentiment that led Indiana to be one of the leading states in adopting the ideas of later discredited eugenics movement during the first part of the 20th century. Along those same lines, Adolph Hitler hauled off to concentration camps millions of Jews, handicapped, homosexual, physically and mentally disabled and others that Hitler deemed to be "inferior" to the "Ayran race." Now 64 years after uncovering the tragedy in those concentration camps, we have a sitting Supreme Court justice spouting the same elitist, bigoted ideas. Ginsburg, who is Jewish, should know better.
That there are abortion supporters whose opinion on the subject are driven by racism and classism is not exactly surprising. However, even the least media-savvy abortion proponents have learned to keep those views to themselves. Here we have the a Supreme Court justice saying out loud a bigoted statement that Archie Bunker would applaud.
I like Welsh do not believe the media will pick up on the story. This is one area where there definitely is a double standard. If Justice Antonio Scalia or Justice Clarence Thomas would have uttered such a statement, there would be a media firestorm and demands that the justice resign. But the bigoted statement came from a white liberal. Let's see if the mainstream media even picks up on it.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Time For Indianapolis Star to Embrace the Future; My Radical Suggestion Regarding Home Delivery
This blog entry reminds me of the infamous commercial for over-the-counter medication where the pitchman says "I am not a doctor, but I play one on TV..."
I'm no expert on newspapers, but I am a reader of them. Let me, from a reader's perspective, give my 2 cents on the future of newspapers.
It is obvious the newspaper industry is in turmoil. Gannett has cut the Indianapolis Star's staff drastically. The reporters who are left are asked to churn out quick stories that are little more than regurgitating what they are told by others. Investigative journalism is dying on the vine. During this past legislative session, it was impossible to stay even reasonably informed of what is going on by reading the Indianapolis Star.
Unlike some people, I don't believe that blogs will ever be an adequate substitute for newspapers. I see blogging as more commentating on current events, with some original research occasionaly thrown in. But do I, with Ogden on Politics, fulfill the role of a reporter? Absolutely not.
It is clear that newspapers have to adjust to the technology of the 21st century instead of languishing in the 19th century. In particular, the home delivery of newspapers is little different today than it was 150 years.
It would seem to me that the newspaper publishers of the 21st century, cannot sustain the business model of physically printing out a newspaper and delivering it to the hundreds of thousands of individual homes. Doing so has to be labor intensive and extraordinarily expensive. Right now newspapers are cutting the investigative reporting and content to try to sustain this unsustainable 19th century business model.
I think it is time to consider radical changes to the newspaper industry. My suggestion is that Gannett scuttle home delivery and take the money saved to invest back into quality reporting and local commentary, which is the reason why people want to read their local newspaper in the first place. The Star could continue to print newspapers for newsstands, but in the 21st century they need to deliver their content to homes via the computer.
Bottom line is that, if things continue, newspapers will grow increasingly irrelevant. Gannett cannot continue to cut quantity and quality at the Star and expect that people are going to want to read that newspaper, in whatever format it delivers it. But if the Star returns to more quality investigative reporting and content, readership will be on the rise, even if that content is delivered via the Internet.
I don't know if my suggestion will work. What I do know is that the current path Gannett is on with the Indianapolis Star is doomed to failure. The business model used by newspapers for 150 years no longer works. It is time to try something different.
I'm no expert on newspapers, but I am a reader of them. Let me, from a reader's perspective, give my 2 cents on the future of newspapers.
It is obvious the newspaper industry is in turmoil. Gannett has cut the Indianapolis Star's staff drastically. The reporters who are left are asked to churn out quick stories that are little more than regurgitating what they are told by others. Investigative journalism is dying on the vine. During this past legislative session, it was impossible to stay even reasonably informed of what is going on by reading the Indianapolis Star.
Unlike some people, I don't believe that blogs will ever be an adequate substitute for newspapers. I see blogging as more commentating on current events, with some original research occasionaly thrown in. But do I, with Ogden on Politics, fulfill the role of a reporter? Absolutely not.
It is clear that newspapers have to adjust to the technology of the 21st century instead of languishing in the 19th century. In particular, the home delivery of newspapers is little different today than it was 150 years.
It would seem to me that the newspaper publishers of the 21st century, cannot sustain the business model of physically printing out a newspaper and delivering it to the hundreds of thousands of individual homes. Doing so has to be labor intensive and extraordinarily expensive. Right now newspapers are cutting the investigative reporting and content to try to sustain this unsustainable 19th century business model.
I think it is time to consider radical changes to the newspaper industry. My suggestion is that Gannett scuttle home delivery and take the money saved to invest back into quality reporting and local commentary, which is the reason why people want to read their local newspaper in the first place. The Star could continue to print newspapers for newsstands, but in the 21st century they need to deliver their content to homes via the computer.
Bottom line is that, if things continue, newspapers will grow increasingly irrelevant. Gannett cannot continue to cut quantity and quality at the Star and expect that people are going to want to read that newspaper, in whatever format it delivers it. But if the Star returns to more quality investigative reporting and content, readership will be on the rise, even if that content is delivered via the Internet.
I don't know if my suggestion will work. What I do know is that the current path Gannett is on with the Indianapolis Star is doomed to failure. The business model used by newspapers for 150 years no longer works. It is time to try something different.
Failed Privatization at FSSA; My Rules on Privatization
The Indianapolis Star reports this morning that Indiana officials are considering scrapping the $1 billion privatization contract Indiana Family and Social Services entered into a couple years ago. According to the article, written by Will Huggins:
As a side note, I like Gary Welsh at Advance Indiana, am amazed that Mitch Roob, the former FSSA director, continues to land high-level positions in government wherever he goes. Roob, who used to work for Affiliated Computer Services immediately before landing at FSSA, clearly had a conflict in supervising the privatization effort at FSSA. When a conflict concerns a matter that is so central to the operations of an agency, it is a conflict that simply can't be realistically waived. Like the conflict Bob Grand has as attorney for the Simons and president of the Capital Improvement Board which contracts with the Pacers, the conflict Roob had was too significant to believe it could be addressed by walling him off some how.
I have preached on the issue of privatization on these pages many times before. Privatization is a good idea in theory but has been bungled horribly in practice. The original purpose of privatization was to bring the market completion into the delivery of public services. I was a huge fan of the concept in the 1990s and run numerous books on the subject.
The trouble is we have gotten away from that original purpose. Not every government service is the kind that lends itself to successful privatization. Also, when there is only one or two private companies that are able to provide service and then you hand that company a 10 year contract, where exactly is the market competition that was the purpose of privatization? All you're doing is creating a government sanctioned monopoly for a private company.
Unfortunately money has also corrupted the original idea of privatization. In addition, to campaign contributions from vendors seeking privatization contracts, you also have government employees moving to and from private companies bidding on privatization contracts. The revolving door in reverse - where a government official like Roob moves from the private sector to government is a situation that our revolving door/conflict of interest laws do not adequately address.
As a Republican, I would like to see privatization not only be a great idea on paper, but one that can succeed in practice. Every day though I grow less optimistic that our elected officials can put aside politics and implement privatization as it was intended.
Previously I have published a list of my privatization rules that should be applied whenever government is considering the privatizing a service.
OGDEN'S RULES ON PRIVATIZATION
1) Are there several vendors who are capable of and interested in providing the service?--If there is only one or two vendors that can provide the service, then you're not instilling market competition into the delivery of the service. You're exposing taxpayers to a monopoly mandated by government.
2) Is the contract for a service that will be bid out?---A contract that will be subject to bidding rules is less likely to be one where the vendor gets the service because of political contacts or campaign contributions.
3) Is the vendor going to be given a long term contract?---When you give a vendor a long term contract, then the vendor doesn't have to worry about market competition if they don't provide the service well. The whole idea of privatization is defeated.
4) Is this a service that is going to be provided out in the open, so the public can judge the quality of the service provided by the vendor?---Garbage collection everyone sees. The running of a maximum security prison is done behind closed doors. The public knows if the company picking up the garbage is doing a good job. The public knows little about how well the prison is being run.
5) Are the individuals who are receiving the service which might be privatized, people who are politically powerless or unpopular?---Classic example is correctional privatization. A sizable portion of the population doesn't care if private correctional companies cut corners on medicine or medical treatment of inmates. So even though the company may not be living up to their obligations under the privatization contract, that contract often is not enforced by public officials who do not have to worry about the powerless constituency receiving the service. By the way, I would say another example of people without much political power are welfare recipients. Witness the recent FSSA privatization effort here in Indiana.
6) Is the company providing the service going to be properly supervised and held accountable if the vendor doesn't live up to the contract?---Too often services get privatized and government does not do adequate monitoring of compliance with terms of the contract. The tendency for government is to just pass blame along to the private company. It doesn't work like that though...government is still legally responsible for the provision of the service, even if it's contracted out to a private vendor.
7) Is the company bidding on the privatization contract willing to subject itself itself to the open records law and disclosure requirements public agencies providing that service would have to follow?---Although providing a public service paid for with taxpayer dollars, many companies insist on operating in secrecy. They claim the secrecy is to protect itself from having the company's secrets stolen. Don't buy that nonsense. The real reason for the scrutiny is that the companies do not want to provide information that could be used to show they are not doing a good job.
8) Did the company or its top employees make large campaign contributions to elected officials and candidates who were in a position to influence the privatization decision?---Privatization has unfortunately become a vehicle by which elected officials and candidates can generate large campaign contributions from companies interested in currying favor. Even after the decision is made, the money train continues because the companies want to keep the elected officials happy and avoid the scrutiny and criticism of their performance.
9) Is the company hiring local politicians in an attempt influence the privatization decision or reduce the criticism of their performance under an existing privatization contract?---It's the oldest game in privatization. A private company which offers a service hires the elected official who was responsible for the government providing that service to the public. The person isn't being hired for his or her expertise. The person is being hired for political influence.
Nearly two years into the privatization of Indiana's welfare system, state officials are considering scrapping it amid widespread concerns that include the mishandling of nearly one in five food-stamp cases.First of all, kudos to Anne Murphy for doing a terrific job at addressing problems with this contract. She's brought the agency a long way in just a few months. I remember early last session when the Governor sharply criticized legislators like Rep. Vanetta Becker from Evansville, who insisted that the situation at FSSA with the privatization contract be reviewed closely. Now we have the Governor's own appointee taking action to possibly cancel the contract.
State welfare officials acknowledge that in about three-quarters of those cases, eligible Hoosiers are being denied aid they should be receiving.
"It's possible we'd have to cancel the contract," said Anne Murphy, secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, referring to a $1.16 billion deal with IBM. She said the company will have until September to make improvements.
...
Under the 10-year contract, one of the richest in state history, IBM Corp. and its subsidiary Affiliated Computer Services agreed to manage the state's system for doling out food stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and Medicaid payments to about a million Hoosiers. Critics' complaints are systemwide, though TANF and Medicare statistics were not readily available Tuesday.
As a side note, I like Gary Welsh at Advance Indiana, am amazed that Mitch Roob, the former FSSA director, continues to land high-level positions in government wherever he goes. Roob, who used to work for Affiliated Computer Services immediately before landing at FSSA, clearly had a conflict in supervising the privatization effort at FSSA. When a conflict concerns a matter that is so central to the operations of an agency, it is a conflict that simply can't be realistically waived. Like the conflict Bob Grand has as attorney for the Simons and president of the Capital Improvement Board which contracts with the Pacers, the conflict Roob had was too significant to believe it could be addressed by walling him off some how.
I have preached on the issue of privatization on these pages many times before. Privatization is a good idea in theory but has been bungled horribly in practice. The original purpose of privatization was to bring the market completion into the delivery of public services. I was a huge fan of the concept in the 1990s and run numerous books on the subject.
The trouble is we have gotten away from that original purpose. Not every government service is the kind that lends itself to successful privatization. Also, when there is only one or two private companies that are able to provide service and then you hand that company a 10 year contract, where exactly is the market competition that was the purpose of privatization? All you're doing is creating a government sanctioned monopoly for a private company.
Unfortunately money has also corrupted the original idea of privatization. In addition, to campaign contributions from vendors seeking privatization contracts, you also have government employees moving to and from private companies bidding on privatization contracts. The revolving door in reverse - where a government official like Roob moves from the private sector to government is a situation that our revolving door/conflict of interest laws do not adequately address.
As a Republican, I would like to see privatization not only be a great idea on paper, but one that can succeed in practice. Every day though I grow less optimistic that our elected officials can put aside politics and implement privatization as it was intended.
Previously I have published a list of my privatization rules that should be applied whenever government is considering the privatizing a service.
OGDEN'S RULES ON PRIVATIZATION
1) Are there several vendors who are capable of and interested in providing the service?--If there is only one or two vendors that can provide the service, then you're not instilling market competition into the delivery of the service. You're exposing taxpayers to a monopoly mandated by government.
2) Is the contract for a service that will be bid out?---A contract that will be subject to bidding rules is less likely to be one where the vendor gets the service because of political contacts or campaign contributions.
3) Is the vendor going to be given a long term contract?---When you give a vendor a long term contract, then the vendor doesn't have to worry about market competition if they don't provide the service well. The whole idea of privatization is defeated.
4) Is this a service that is going to be provided out in the open, so the public can judge the quality of the service provided by the vendor?---Garbage collection everyone sees. The running of a maximum security prison is done behind closed doors. The public knows if the company picking up the garbage is doing a good job. The public knows little about how well the prison is being run.
5) Are the individuals who are receiving the service which might be privatized, people who are politically powerless or unpopular?---Classic example is correctional privatization. A sizable portion of the population doesn't care if private correctional companies cut corners on medicine or medical treatment of inmates. So even though the company may not be living up to their obligations under the privatization contract, that contract often is not enforced by public officials who do not have to worry about the powerless constituency receiving the service. By the way, I would say another example of people without much political power are welfare recipients. Witness the recent FSSA privatization effort here in Indiana.
6) Is the company providing the service going to be properly supervised and held accountable if the vendor doesn't live up to the contract?---Too often services get privatized and government does not do adequate monitoring of compliance with terms of the contract. The tendency for government is to just pass blame along to the private company. It doesn't work like that though...government is still legally responsible for the provision of the service, even if it's contracted out to a private vendor.
7) Is the company bidding on the privatization contract willing to subject itself itself to the open records law and disclosure requirements public agencies providing that service would have to follow?---Although providing a public service paid for with taxpayer dollars, many companies insist on operating in secrecy. They claim the secrecy is to protect itself from having the company's secrets stolen. Don't buy that nonsense. The real reason for the scrutiny is that the companies do not want to provide information that could be used to show they are not doing a good job.
8) Did the company or its top employees make large campaign contributions to elected officials and candidates who were in a position to influence the privatization decision?---Privatization has unfortunately become a vehicle by which elected officials and candidates can generate large campaign contributions from companies interested in currying favor. Even after the decision is made, the money train continues because the companies want to keep the elected officials happy and avoid the scrutiny and criticism of their performance.
9) Is the company hiring local politicians in an attempt influence the privatization decision or reduce the criticism of their performance under an existing privatization contract?---It's the oldest game in privatization. A private company which offers a service hires the elected official who was responsible for the government providing that service to the public. The person isn't being hired for his or her expertise. The person is being hired for political influence.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Interpreters in Courts v. Interpreters in Jails
One of my favorite blogs the Indiana Law Blog reports on a recent Indiana Supreme Court case Jesus Arrieta v. State of Indiana, in which the Court ruled that trial courts need to provide interpreters even when a defendant is not declared indigent.
We have brought a similiar situation in the Marion County jail to the attention of the Marion County Sheriff Frank Anderson, the Indianapolis City-County Council, Public Safety Director Scott Newman among others. Approximately 1100 inmates are incarcerated at Marion County Jail #2, operated by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). Many of the inmates are Spanish-speaking. During the course of their incarceration, inmates have to meet with doctors and nurses. Confidential medical information information is conveyed between the inmates and the CCA doctors and nurses. CCA though will not hire a translator for the inmates. Instead, undoubtedly to save money and keep its profit margins high, CCA enlists the help of other Spanish-speaking inmates to act as translators for the medical staff.
It doesn't take much legal knowledge to know that this is a violation of HIPAA. Even if the inmate were to consent to the inmate interpreter (like he has any choice if he wants to communicate with CCA's medical staff), it has a chilling effect on what an inmate might be willing to reveal to a doctor or nurse using an inmate translator. For example, one former CCA nurse told me she found out later that an inmate was HIV positive, a fact he did not want to reveal through an inmate translator.
Further, there is an additional problem. Doctors and nurses convey a great deal of technical medical information to their patients. With an inmate translator, the doctors and nurses have no way of knowing that the medical information they are trying to convey is being translated correctly by the inmate translator.
Of course, Marion County Sheriff Frank Andrson, who is directly responsible for the operation of Marion County jails, including the privatized Jail #2, is well aware of the lack of translators, as well as the fact that CCA does medical intakes and examinations at Marion County Jail #2 in the audio presence of other inmates, another HIPAA violation. You think the good Sheriff does anything to stop the practice? Nope. The Sheriff continues his philosophy of, when confronted with a problem in his jails, to simply look the other way. One would think that when he was stripped of his law enforcement authority he would have more time to devote himself to investigating what goes on in the Marion County jails and taking corrective action. Apparently not. It would be interesting in seeing how much in campaign contributions the Sheriff, and Mayor Ballard, receive from CCA while continuing to look the other way while CCA mismanages Jail #2. With regard to the Mayor, the answer is $5,000 listed on his 2008 report.
We have brought a similiar situation in the Marion County jail to the attention of the Marion County Sheriff Frank Anderson, the Indianapolis City-County Council, Public Safety Director Scott Newman among others. Approximately 1100 inmates are incarcerated at Marion County Jail #2, operated by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). Many of the inmates are Spanish-speaking. During the course of their incarceration, inmates have to meet with doctors and nurses. Confidential medical information information is conveyed between the inmates and the CCA doctors and nurses. CCA though will not hire a translator for the inmates. Instead, undoubtedly to save money and keep its profit margins high, CCA enlists the help of other Spanish-speaking inmates to act as translators for the medical staff.
It doesn't take much legal knowledge to know that this is a violation of HIPAA. Even if the inmate were to consent to the inmate interpreter (like he has any choice if he wants to communicate with CCA's medical staff), it has a chilling effect on what an inmate might be willing to reveal to a doctor or nurse using an inmate translator. For example, one former CCA nurse told me she found out later that an inmate was HIV positive, a fact he did not want to reveal through an inmate translator.
Further, there is an additional problem. Doctors and nurses convey a great deal of technical medical information to their patients. With an inmate translator, the doctors and nurses have no way of knowing that the medical information they are trying to convey is being translated correctly by the inmate translator.
Of course, Marion County Sheriff Frank Andrson, who is directly responsible for the operation of Marion County jails, including the privatized Jail #2, is well aware of the lack of translators, as well as the fact that CCA does medical intakes and examinations at Marion County Jail #2 in the audio presence of other inmates, another HIPAA violation. You think the good Sheriff does anything to stop the practice? Nope. The Sheriff continues his philosophy of, when confronted with a problem in his jails, to simply look the other way. One would think that when he was stripped of his law enforcement authority he would have more time to devote himself to investigating what goes on in the Marion County jails and taking corrective action. Apparently not. It would be interesting in seeing how much in campaign contributions the Sheriff, and Mayor Ballard, receive from CCA while continuing to look the other way while CCA mismanages Jail #2. With regard to the Mayor, the answer is $5,000 listed on his 2008 report.
Indianapolis Downtown, Inc. Picks Taxpayers' Wallets While Patting Itself On The Back
Monday’s Indianapolis Star contains a full-page ad from Indianapolis Downtown, Inc. In the ad, IDI declares:
In addition to "stakeholders," the ad lists a long list of "Investors." Noteworthy "Investors "include the Indiana Sports Corporation, the Indianapolis Convention & Visitors Association, the Indianapolis Zoo, IndyGo, Indiana Historical Society, Indiana Repertory Theater, Indianapolis Colts and Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc.
For those of you out of the loop, Indianapolis Downtown, Inc. is the conduit through which the City of Indianapolis channels tax dollars to promote the city. IDI also gains additional dollars by shaking down downtown merchants, trying to get them to join the organization as "stakeholders" or "investors." In return for joining, the IDI gives the merchant the official stamp of approval and supports them on various issues. Needless to say, you are not going to find IDI opposing stakeholders like Anthem, Lilly or Simon on anything, even if what those companies propose to do is harmful to downtown. Likewise, given the millions that IDI receives from the "stakeholder" City of Indianapolis, you are not going to find IDI opposing anything the administration wants no matter how bad it might be for downtown.
What IDI does should sound familiar. In the old gangster movies, you saw mobsters go to owners of businesses and asked to be paid protection money so no harm comes to the business. IDI sells the same protection service for downtown businesses, sans the threat of physical, albeit not necessarily financial, harm. If you have a downtown business, but don't sign up to be an "investor" in IDI, you can bet IDI will not support any project you have regardless of whether it is for the good of downtown.
IDI's biggest offense, however is its waste of taxpayer money, which I have previously reported on. In light of IDI now using taxpayer dollars to promote itself through a full-page newspaper ad, let's though take another look at that 2007 tax return IDI filed.
According to IDI’s 2007 tax return, the non-profit received $1,303,543 from government sources and $728,285 came from “direct public support.” The return showed IDI, which had $7,183,543 stocked away in mutual funds, money market funds and real estate investment funds, made $340,089 on its investments in 2007. The return shows total revenue for 2007 in the amount of $2,717,938.
In 2007, IDI paid a total of $976,955 in salaries and benefits. This includes President Tamara Zahn who raked in $198,284 in 2007. Certainly she is way over $200,000 a year by now.
IDI’s salaries and benefits for its employees consume a phenomenal 36% of the revenue it receives. Compared to the $1,303,543 received from government, IDI’s salaries and benefits consume 75% of those taxpayer dollars.
But that is only the beginning of IDI’s administrative costs. Itemized on the return are such expenses as telephone, conventions, accounting fees, legal fees, insurance, professional fees, advertising and investment fees (investment fees total a remarkable $31,237). These other administrative costs total $704,314. Together with salaries and benefits, the total administrative costs for IDI in 2007 is $1,681,279.
Again, IDI’s income in 2007 was $2,717,938. This means that IDI spends a remarkable 62% of its revenue on administrative costs ($1,681,279/$2,717,938).
Lest one has forgotten, an earlier statistic bears repeating. While IDI gets the majority of its money from the City of Indianapolis, i.e. the taxpayers, IDI has managed to stash away $7,183,543 in investments. Indianapolis Downtown Marketing, Inc., which is solely owned by IDI, has also stashed away $2,592,546 in investments. That's $9,776,089 total. Most of that nearly $10 million dollars originated as taxpayer dollars, money that was not spent by IDI or IDM to promote the City as intended.
Instead of running a slick newspaper ad (which demonstrably was funded chiefly with taxpayer money), IDI would be well advised to act as a better steward of our tax dollars. Better yet, the Mayor’s Office and the Indianapolis City-County Council should simply cease using IDI as a conduit for the expenditure of taxpayer money to promote the City. (There are other organizations - the Indianapolis Convention and Visitors Association and Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce to name two - which already serves the mission IDI claims to be pursuing.) It is clear that most of our tax dollars is simply ending up in the pocket of IDI and never seeing the light of day. Indianapolis taxpayers deserve better than what they are receiving from Indianapolis Downtown, Inc.
"A great Downtown doesn't just happen. It takes vision. It takes planning. And, most of all, it takes the dedicated support of community leaders. Indianapolis Downtown, Inc. thanks our many corporate stakeholders, investors, members, elected officials and city employees whose ongoing efforts have truly transformed Indianapolis into a world-class City."IDI then goes on to list its "stakeholders" which include Simon Property Group, the Indianapolis Star (The Star sets up yet another conflict of interest), the City of Indianapolis, Lilly’s and others.
In addition to "stakeholders," the ad lists a long list of "Investors." Noteworthy "Investors "include the Indiana Sports Corporation, the Indianapolis Convention & Visitors Association, the Indianapolis Zoo, IndyGo, Indiana Historical Society, Indiana Repertory Theater, Indianapolis Colts and Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc.
For those of you out of the loop, Indianapolis Downtown, Inc. is the conduit through which the City of Indianapolis channels tax dollars to promote the city. IDI also gains additional dollars by shaking down downtown merchants, trying to get them to join the organization as "stakeholders" or "investors." In return for joining, the IDI gives the merchant the official stamp of approval and supports them on various issues. Needless to say, you are not going to find IDI opposing stakeholders like Anthem, Lilly or Simon on anything, even if what those companies propose to do is harmful to downtown. Likewise, given the millions that IDI receives from the "stakeholder" City of Indianapolis, you are not going to find IDI opposing anything the administration wants no matter how bad it might be for downtown.
What IDI does should sound familiar. In the old gangster movies, you saw mobsters go to owners of businesses and asked to be paid protection money so no harm comes to the business. IDI sells the same protection service for downtown businesses, sans the threat of physical, albeit not necessarily financial, harm. If you have a downtown business, but don't sign up to be an "investor" in IDI, you can bet IDI will not support any project you have regardless of whether it is for the good of downtown.
IDI's biggest offense, however is its waste of taxpayer money, which I have previously reported on. In light of IDI now using taxpayer dollars to promote itself through a full-page newspaper ad, let's though take another look at that 2007 tax return IDI filed.
According to IDI’s 2007 tax return, the non-profit received $1,303,543 from government sources and $728,285 came from “direct public support.” The return showed IDI, which had $7,183,543 stocked away in mutual funds, money market funds and real estate investment funds, made $340,089 on its investments in 2007. The return shows total revenue for 2007 in the amount of $2,717,938.
In 2007, IDI paid a total of $976,955 in salaries and benefits. This includes President Tamara Zahn who raked in $198,284 in 2007. Certainly she is way over $200,000 a year by now.
IDI’s salaries and benefits for its employees consume a phenomenal 36% of the revenue it receives. Compared to the $1,303,543 received from government, IDI’s salaries and benefits consume 75% of those taxpayer dollars.
But that is only the beginning of IDI’s administrative costs. Itemized on the return are such expenses as telephone, conventions, accounting fees, legal fees, insurance, professional fees, advertising and investment fees (investment fees total a remarkable $31,237). These other administrative costs total $704,314. Together with salaries and benefits, the total administrative costs for IDI in 2007 is $1,681,279.
Again, IDI’s income in 2007 was $2,717,938. This means that IDI spends a remarkable 62% of its revenue on administrative costs ($1,681,279/$2,717,938).
Lest one has forgotten, an earlier statistic bears repeating. While IDI gets the majority of its money from the City of Indianapolis, i.e. the taxpayers, IDI has managed to stash away $7,183,543 in investments. Indianapolis Downtown Marketing, Inc., which is solely owned by IDI, has also stashed away $2,592,546 in investments. That's $9,776,089 total. Most of that nearly $10 million dollars originated as taxpayer dollars, money that was not spent by IDI or IDM to promote the City as intended.
Instead of running a slick newspaper ad (which demonstrably was funded chiefly with taxpayer money), IDI would be well advised to act as a better steward of our tax dollars. Better yet, the Mayor’s Office and the Indianapolis City-County Council should simply cease using IDI as a conduit for the expenditure of taxpayer money to promote the City. (There are other organizations - the Indianapolis Convention and Visitors Association and Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce to name two - which already serves the mission IDI claims to be pursuing.) It is clear that most of our tax dollars is simply ending up in the pocket of IDI and never seeing the light of day. Indianapolis taxpayers deserve better than what they are receiving from Indianapolis Downtown, Inc.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Indianapolis Star Gets Its Facts Wrong in Declaring Minority and Poor Students Losers in Budget Battle
Today's Indianapolis Star brings us an article with the headline "Poorest students losing the most." The article details how some school districts, in particular Indianapolis Public Schools and schools in Gary, Indiana, receive less than funding in the two year budget than was previously the case. The reason is simple: the enrollment in those two school districts is dropping dramatically.
While everyone agrees that it costs more to educate children in the inner city districts of Gary and Indianapolis, the question is how much more? IPS insists on continuing to get more and more of our tax dollars every year despite the dramatic drop in enrollment in the district. Enrollment dropped from 38,900 to 34,000 in the past year and is expected to dip to nearly 30,000 by 2011. This is a school district that decades ago had student enrollment over 100,000.
The Star article suggests that the state's poor and black students as the "losers" in the budget battle. Apparently the reporters, Marty Beth Schneider and Mark Nichols, are not aware of the makeup of those who attend charter schools. 70% of the students at charter schools are minority, and over 60% qualify as impoverished under the free school lunch program. Contrary to the oft-heard claim that charter school students are the cream of the crop, students who enter charter schools start with lower test scores than their counterparts in public schools. Further, charter schools cannot pick and choose their students. By law, they cannot turn down students and if more students apply than they have room, they have to take students by lottery. Charter schools also have to make do with only per pupil funding. They receive no tax dollars for buildings or transportation, unlike other public schools. In short, they educate students for much less than our "regular" public schools.
In the budget that passed, charter schools were a big winner. The foolish idea of charter school caps was tossed aside in the special session. The budget bill passed also gives charter schools the opportunity to tap into technology funds that other public schools received, provides a pilot program for virtual charter schools, helped with the start-up financial challenges faced by charter schools, and allows for the creation of Recovery Charter Schools for students recovering from addictions.
Most importantly though charter schools won an increase in funding due to the expected increase in charter school enrollment. Underlying that increase is the concept that the money should follow the child. In charter schools, that's their only funding source - the per pupil amount.
While IPS claims that charter schools are bleeding it dry, the fact is that most IPS students, 70%, who leave end up in township schools not charter schools, which only account for 16% of the students leaving IPS.
An additional reform mentioned in the article is a tax credit to encourage donations to private schools scholarships. Not surprising, this measure, which seeks to, like charters, promote parents having a choice in the education of their children, is opposed by defenders of the failing status quo.
Contrary to the Star's story, the budget did not deal a blow to the education of minorities and the poor. Rather, with the charter school reforms and the private school scholarship tax credit, the budget further opened the door so that minorities and the poor can finally choose to escape their failing schools. It is not clear why the Star would not believe that giving the parents of minorities and the poor no choice but to send their children to failing, crime-ridden schools - would have been a victory for those children.
While everyone agrees that it costs more to educate children in the inner city districts of Gary and Indianapolis, the question is how much more? IPS insists on continuing to get more and more of our tax dollars every year despite the dramatic drop in enrollment in the district. Enrollment dropped from 38,900 to 34,000 in the past year and is expected to dip to nearly 30,000 by 2011. This is a school district that decades ago had student enrollment over 100,000.
The Star article suggests that the state's poor and black students as the "losers" in the budget battle. Apparently the reporters, Marty Beth Schneider and Mark Nichols, are not aware of the makeup of those who attend charter schools. 70% of the students at charter schools are minority, and over 60% qualify as impoverished under the free school lunch program. Contrary to the oft-heard claim that charter school students are the cream of the crop, students who enter charter schools start with lower test scores than their counterparts in public schools. Further, charter schools cannot pick and choose their students. By law, they cannot turn down students and if more students apply than they have room, they have to take students by lottery. Charter schools also have to make do with only per pupil funding. They receive no tax dollars for buildings or transportation, unlike other public schools. In short, they educate students for much less than our "regular" public schools.
In the budget that passed, charter schools were a big winner. The foolish idea of charter school caps was tossed aside in the special session. The budget bill passed also gives charter schools the opportunity to tap into technology funds that other public schools received, provides a pilot program for virtual charter schools, helped with the start-up financial challenges faced by charter schools, and allows for the creation of Recovery Charter Schools for students recovering from addictions.
Most importantly though charter schools won an increase in funding due to the expected increase in charter school enrollment. Underlying that increase is the concept that the money should follow the child. In charter schools, that's their only funding source - the per pupil amount.
While IPS claims that charter schools are bleeding it dry, the fact is that most IPS students, 70%, who leave end up in township schools not charter schools, which only account for 16% of the students leaving IPS.
An additional reform mentioned in the article is a tax credit to encourage donations to private schools scholarships. Not surprising, this measure, which seeks to, like charters, promote parents having a choice in the education of their children, is opposed by defenders of the failing status quo.
Contrary to the Star's story, the budget did not deal a blow to the education of minorities and the poor. Rather, with the charter school reforms and the private school scholarship tax credit, the budget further opened the door so that minorities and the poor can finally choose to escape their failing schools. It is not clear why the Star would not believe that giving the parents of minorities and the poor no choice but to send their children to failing, crime-ridden schools - would have been a victory for those children.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Arts Council of Indianapolis Misleads Parks and Recreation Committee Regarding Its Administrative Expenses
Over the weekend, I had the chance to review the video July 2, 2009 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Committee of the Indianapolis City-County Council.
The Committee considered a request of the Arts Council of Indianapolis that be allowed to reallocate money previously given to it by the Council due to the fact that the Arts Council would not receive an expected grant from the Capital Improvement Board.
There was probably nothing wrong with the proposal. The grant had already been made so it was water that, unfortunately, had already passed under the bridge. The Arts Council was just asking to move around money it had already been given.
What was wrong, however, was the tall tale new Art Council President David Lawrence told the council committee.
Councilor Michael McQuillen asked how much of the Arts Council budget is taken up by administrative costs. It's a darn good question. After all, the Council is the funnel through which the city is passing out money for the Arts. If the Arts Council is consuming the money in its own administrative costs, then it would suggest that taxpayers are not getting their money's worth using this private entity to distribute tax dollars.
New Arts Council President David Lawrence responded that the Arts Council only spends 18% on administrative costs. Wrong. In actuality, according to the Arts Council's 2007 tax return, administrative costs for the Arts Council are over three times that figure, nearly 57% of what the Arts Council takes in, it pays out for administrative costs. If you just compare those administrative costs to how much the Arts Council gets from taxpayers, the figure soars to over 90%.
In its 2007 tax return, the Arts Council received $3,082,284 from government and $1,578,947 in direct public support. Total revenue of the organization in 2007 was $4,888,354. As a side note, the Arts Council, which is constantly claiming poverty, reported $9,645,999 in accumulated assets.
Administrative expenses on the return total $2,784,836. This includes $1,038,608 spent on salaries and benefits for their 19 employees. The former President of the Arts Council, Greg Charleston alone pulled down $170,391 in compensation.
Being a non-profit corporation does not mean the people who run the organizations don't profit. The Arts Council of Indianapolis and the other non-profits receiving grants from government need to be more open and honest about their administrative costs, including lavish salaries and benefits they pay themselves after picking up a check from the taxpayers. It is time the Indianapolis City-County Council stops handing out our tax money to organizations whose primary interest is enriching themselves.
The Committee considered a request of the Arts Council of Indianapolis that be allowed to reallocate money previously given to it by the Council due to the fact that the Arts Council would not receive an expected grant from the Capital Improvement Board.
There was probably nothing wrong with the proposal. The grant had already been made so it was water that, unfortunately, had already passed under the bridge. The Arts Council was just asking to move around money it had already been given.
What was wrong, however, was the tall tale new Art Council President David Lawrence told the council committee.
Councilor Michael McQuillen asked how much of the Arts Council budget is taken up by administrative costs. It's a darn good question. After all, the Council is the funnel through which the city is passing out money for the Arts. If the Arts Council is consuming the money in its own administrative costs, then it would suggest that taxpayers are not getting their money's worth using this private entity to distribute tax dollars.
New Arts Council President David Lawrence responded that the Arts Council only spends 18% on administrative costs. Wrong. In actuality, according to the Arts Council's 2007 tax return, administrative costs for the Arts Council are over three times that figure, nearly 57% of what the Arts Council takes in, it pays out for administrative costs. If you just compare those administrative costs to how much the Arts Council gets from taxpayers, the figure soars to over 90%.
In its 2007 tax return, the Arts Council received $3,082,284 from government and $1,578,947 in direct public support. Total revenue of the organization in 2007 was $4,888,354. As a side note, the Arts Council, which is constantly claiming poverty, reported $9,645,999 in accumulated assets.
Administrative expenses on the return total $2,784,836. This includes $1,038,608 spent on salaries and benefits for their 19 employees. The former President of the Arts Council, Greg Charleston alone pulled down $170,391 in compensation.
Being a non-profit corporation does not mean the people who run the organizations don't profit. The Arts Council of Indianapolis and the other non-profits receiving grants from government need to be more open and honest about their administrative costs, including lavish salaries and benefits they pay themselves after picking up a check from the taxpayers. It is time the Indianapolis City-County Council stops handing out our tax money to organizations whose primary interest is enriching themselves.
Indianapolis Star Gets It Wrong on Mayor Ballard and the CIB Bailout
This morning's Indianapolis Star contains an editorial critical of the Mayor's handling of the bailout for the Capital Improvement Board.
The Indianapolis Star cites two errors in the Ballard/CIB legislative strategy. What the Star fails to grasp is that these "errors" were part of the only strategy that was possible to pass the measure. The Star opines.
Introducing the measure early, would not have gotten the public behind the measure (which was in the beginning and, still is, incredibly unpopular with the public). Nor would it have garnered legislative support. The CIB bailout proposal introduced at any other time was still a CIB bailout proposal using higher taxes that was never going to be popular. The CIB lobbyists used the Politics 101 strategy for getting an unpopular measure passed. And they did succeed in getting a bailout measure passed, though it did not include everything they wanted.
Second, the Star's editorial faults the Mayor for changing his position on the CIB bailout. What the Star fails to grasp is that the Mayor's original proposal was extremely unpopular with the public and non-Indy legislators. That's why they changed direction - they were trying to come up with something that would pass. But the changes in direction were marginal at best. The Mayor and the CIB lobbyists simply tried putting a new set of clothes on the old tax increase proposals and trying to fool the public and the legislators. Nobody was fooled.
The Star's editorial not only missed the mark on the two points raised and discussed above, but also missed the mark in what it failed to address. Some relevant questions are as follows:
The Indianapolis Star cites two errors in the Ballard/CIB legislative strategy. What the Star fails to grasp is that these "errors" were part of the only strategy that was possible to pass the measure. The Star opines.
First, he waited until only two weeks were left in the legislature's regular session to lay out his set of proposals to close a projected $47 million budget deficit.First, of all, waiting to release the CIB proposal publicly was part of a definite legislative strategy. The CIB's lobbyists knew that the bailout proposal was highly unpopular and would generate a great deal of opposition from legislators from outside Indianapolis who saw the proposal as benefiting Indianapolis to the exclusion of areas outside of Marion County. The City/CIB lobbyists knew quite well that a stand alone CIB bill had no chance of passing the legislature. Their plan all along was to get it inserted into another bill that would make it difficult for opponents to target the CIB proposal for defeat.
...
Ballard's second error was that once he released his plan he then repeatedly shifted his position on the best means of a bailout for the CIB. The mayor's original proposal, released April 13, included four tax increases and $5 million in contributions from both the Colts and Pacers.
Introducing the measure early, would not have gotten the public behind the measure (which was in the beginning and, still is, incredibly unpopular with the public). Nor would it have garnered legislative support. The CIB bailout proposal introduced at any other time was still a CIB bailout proposal using higher taxes that was never going to be popular. The CIB lobbyists used the Politics 101 strategy for getting an unpopular measure passed. And they did succeed in getting a bailout measure passed, though it did not include everything they wanted.
Second, the Star's editorial faults the Mayor for changing his position on the CIB bailout. What the Star fails to grasp is that the Mayor's original proposal was extremely unpopular with the public and non-Indy legislators. That's why they changed direction - they were trying to come up with something that would pass. But the changes in direction were marginal at best. The Mayor and the CIB lobbyists simply tried putting a new set of clothes on the old tax increase proposals and trying to fool the public and the legislators. Nobody was fooled.
The Star's editorial not only missed the mark on the two points raised and discussed above, but also missed the mark in what it failed to address. Some relevant questions are as follows:
- Why is the Star not demanding that the Mayor order a complete accounting of the CIB and an investigation into how it got in the shape it did.
- Why is the Star not demanding that the Mayor ask for the resignations of those on the CIB who got us in this hole?
- Why is the Star not pointing out the obvious conflict of interest Grand has as head of the CIB and attorney for the Simon Brothers, the owner of the Pacers, and asking for his resignation?
- Why is the Star not demanding that the CIB be more accountable and open in how it operates? The Board kept from the public for 10 years the deficit the CIB was running.
- Why is the Star not questioning the plan of the Mayor and the CIB to have taxpayers pick up the $15 million in operating expenses at Conseco, a building on which the Pacers get 100% of the revenue? The Pacers are not going to pay the $50 million to $125 million breakup fee to break the Conseco contract early. They have no leverage.
- Why is the Star not calling the Mayor out on his lie that the bailout has nothing to do with subsidies to our professional sports franchises? He keeps saying that this is about the convention business, while at the same time agreeing to hand the Simons $15 million more of taxpayers' money for the Pacers? We are in the hole because of professional sports subsidies. He should be honest about it.
- Why is the Star not questioning the Mayor and the CIB's assumption that more investment in professional sports is a good idea? All the studies show pro sports subsidies generate little if any return. Yet the Star has never questions this.
- Why does the Star let the Mayor continue get away with his 66,000 hospitality worker figure? Those include workers in Central Indiana. Very few of those workers work downtown, many don't even live in Marion County. Only a fraction of the 66,000 jobs are related to events happening downtown.
- Why is the Star not questioning the Mayor's assumption that raising taxes on visitors will not have a negative impact on the convention business and will in fact "save" it?
I can't end without addressing the following claim made by the Star:
"One of the mayor's strengths is that he's surrounded himself with a good team of aides. But he must listen to them."
The Mayor's administration from Day 1 has been characterized by one boneheaded maneuver after another. There seems to be no interest in this administration in standing up for taxpayers and there is a disturbing penchant of theMayor falling on the sword for misdeeds of his Democratic predecessor. The Mayor has also taken on one Republican group after another...from battling taxpayer groups to taking on gunowners. He has alienated virtually all of those people who supported him when he was given no chance to win the Mayorship. Ballard has positioned himself where he has no chance of winning re-election and he is going to take his own party down with 2011.
And we're supposed to believe that the Mayor's advisors are not responsible for any of this? That it was all the Mayor's own doing? Robert Vane is a quality communication director, but outside of that, I don't see any strong advisors. Most are very young and very inexperienced. The ones who aren't....the unofficial advisors, such as Bob Grand and Joe Loftus, care only enriching themselves or their clients. They have sold out the Republican Party by pursuing selfish goals knowing they would render Ballard a highly unpopular one term Mayor and cause the Republicans to lose their majority on the council.
Yep, the Star missed the mark on this editorial.
Friday, July 3, 2009
I'll Drink To That!
I do not really see any purpose served by the Sunday prohibition on alcohol sales. I also believe the 21 year old drinking age actually encourages irresponsible consumption of alcohol.
WTHR reports:
WTHR reports:
The special session of the Indiana General Assembly is over, but it's not too early to think about next year.
That's the strategy of retailers who want to get rid of Indiana's ban on Sunday carryout alcohol sales.
The group known as Hoosiers for Beverage Choices is asking customers at more than
1,000 retail outlets across the state to sign a petition promoting Sunday carryout sales. The campaign runs through July 19.The group formed nearly a year ago but dropped their efforts to change the law during the regular legislative session this year. President Grant Monahan of the Indiana Retail Council says it's getting active again to remind consumers they're still
committed to the change.
Participating retailers include Kroger, Marsh and Jewel supermarkets and several convenience store chains.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Who Needs Parking Meter Revenue? Apparently Not The City of Indianapolis
You are looking north on Delaware Street near the intersection with Market Street. I went out for lunch today (Thursday) and found workers already have bagged parking meters for Saturday's Independence Day fireworks. I walked up and down Delaware and Pennsylvania Street as well as east-west streets like Ohio, Michigan, and New York. Probably 500 meters are bagged. Some say "No Parking Saturday." Some say "No Parking Today." They all say this is an "Emergency Order" of the "Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department."
Apparently the "emergency" is that the workers did not want to work Friday evening or early Saturday morning bagging the meters after they stopped collecting revenue for the city.
Of course this will cost the city plenty in parking revenue. Each meter if occupied earns 75 cents an hour. On most streets (with the exception of Delaware which stops it at 3 p.m. due to rush hour) parking meters have to be fed at least 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., which is 9 hours. Some are actually 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., 11 hours. Because of the fact some meters won't be occupied full-time and you can't park after 3 p.m. on Delaware, let's make it 8 hours to be fair.
A meter earning 75 cents an hour for 8 hour produces $6 in revenue in a day's time. 500 x $6 = $3,000. Since the meters this time are bagged a day and a half in advance, that means a loss in revenue for the city of $4,500.
It is common in Indianapolis that meters are bagged well a day or two in advance of an event. The fact that this is costing the city precious revenue as well as inconveniencing downtown workers and visitors to our city does not seem to be a concern to city officials.
Update: Today (Friday) I saw parking tickets being written on car after car parked on Delaware Street. Obviously the drivers, seeing the signs covering the meters, did not realize they still had to feed the meters. So they all got $20 tickets.
Legislative Session Winners and Losers
A day late and a dollar short, I offer my own take on "winners and losers" from the Indiana General Assembly special session:
Winners
Winners
- Governor Mitch Daniels. For a man who has the 2nd weakest veto power of any governor in the country, Governor Daniels used the bully pulpit masterfully and in the end got the budget he wanted.
- House Speaker Brian Bosma. While his fervent support of CIB tax increases fortunately fizzled, he held his caucus together beautifully in the House. In the end, although in the minority, the House Republicans were calling the shots.
- Senate Majority Leader David Long. Of course, it's not hard being a winner when you have a solid majority as the Republicans do in the Senate. One wonders though if he and his fellow Senators may have overplayed his hand with the Sen. Leising leak. Sure they do not like Leising, but that may have been going too far.
- Education reform proponents. Charter schools were nearly capped in the regular session, but in special session, the proponents of charters ran the table. Education reformers even got a tax credit passed for tuition at private schools. Let's not use the nasty word "vouchers" though.
Losers
- House Speaker Pat Bauer. Although usually a masterful politician, the South Bend Democrat simply could not hold his caucus together at the end.
- Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard. Ballard's tunnel vision regarding how to deal with the CIB problem in the end did him in. Now the Mayor is being blasted by the popular Governor of his own party. Look for rumors that he won't seek a second term to increase.
- CIB Bailout supporters. CIB lobbyists were all over the Statehouse for the regular and special session. Wonder how much that cost the CIB. In the end, they only got a loan, the right to raise the hotel tax and right to raise additional taxes in 2013, long after Mayor Ballard's political career will have come to a merciful end. CIB proponents did not have a Plan B if they did not get the tax increases they wanted. Now, Plan B might be construction of a time machine to speed forward to 2013. Given the lack of profit in running the CIB, privatization will be difficult, but if it happens, it will certainly be an entity that is willing to come into the Circle City and engage in the pay to play politics that dominates Indianapolis
- Dr. Eugene White and IPS. Even though IPS continues to lose students, the district insists that it needs more and more money even though IPS has only a fraction of the students it had 30 years ago and has graduation rates that are near the bottom in the state. The IPS annual begfest has worn out its welcome at the Statehouse. It's sad how IPS supporters think it is okay to use kids directly involved in political activity to try to get more money.
- ISTA. Not only was the ISTA retirement fund taken over by NEA, ISTA might want to have NEA take over its political activities. ISTA lost nearly across the board in special session.
- Gambling supporters. (Again, I refuse to call it "gaming" as if dropping the "b" and "l" will somehow trick people into thinking it is something other than gambling.) The CIB bailout was seen as an excuse to expand gambling. That fizzled. So too did the earlier racino bailout bill. No Indianapolis casino either despite the fervent support of Ways and Means Chairman Bill Crawford.
- Those who decry the need for any special session. The special session allowed time for new budget figures to come in which showed a substantial drop in state tax revenues. Out of the special session, came a much better, taxpayer friendly budget. The state's taxpayers were out thousands of dollars because of the cost of the special session. But that turned out to be a good investment because in the end a much better budget was produced.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Governor Daniels Loses Patience With Mayor Ballard on CIB, Rebuffs Future Tax Increase Proposals
Apparently the Governor does not share the Mayor's desire to bring more tax increase proposals to bail out the Capital Improvement Board to the legislature next year. From the on-line Indianapolis Star:
INDIANAPOLIS — State lawmakers from Indianapolis say a plan to help the city's struggling sports agency is a temporary fix, but Gov. Mitch says he doesn't want any future legislation to deal with the Capital Improvement Board.
The Republican governor said Wednesday that city officials changed their minds more than once about what they wanted to help overcome a projected $47 million deficit for next year.
Daniels says Indianapolis should make do with the plan lawmakers passed Tuesday in the new budget. The plan allows Indianapolis to raise its hotel tax immediately and raise car rental and ticket taxes in 2013.
Democratic House Speaker Patrick Bauer says the CIB issue raises resentment among lawmakers who want help for their communities.
Letter Writer Gets the History of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Wrong
Today's Indianapolis Star brings the latest exchange of letters regarding Republicans and racism. Pascal de Caprariis of Martinsville writes:
I have written on this subject before in Democrats & Civil Rights: A Shameful Legacy (9/28/2008). Below is an excerpt from that post.
See also: Niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. Corrects the Democrats' Revisionist Civil Rights History (9/15/2008)
In criticizing a column by Leonard Pitts, Robert Meier (Letters, June 29) correctly notes that not all racists are or have been in the Republican Party. In fact, in the past, many racists were Democrats. But Meier neglected to mention that after the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 many of the Southern racists in the Democratic Party suddenly became Republicans. Because of that shift, Republicans have had a lock on the South since then.It is clear though that the writer has no grasp whatsoever of history. Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in overwhelming numbers, by 80%, while Democrat support was in the low 60s. It was a contingent of Democratic Senators from the South who attempted to stop the Civil Rights Act with a filibuster, which Republicans voted en masse to break. Republican, Everett Dirksen, carried the bill in the Senate and helped break filibuster. So, pray tell, why would those Democrats in the South switch parties because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it was Republicans chiefly supporting the bill and it was their Democratic Party in the South voting against it?
I have written on this subject before in Democrats & Civil Rights: A Shameful Legacy (9/28/2008). Below is an excerpt from that post.
As I explain above, the reason for the switch in party allegiances in the South (which wasn't nearly as sudden as suggested by Mr. de Caprariis) was not that the Republicans became the racist party, but that the Democrats stopped being the racist party, in particular the party eventually stoped supporting things like legal segregation and Jim Crow laws which were the product of Democratic dominated legislatures and city councils in the South. Voters who strongly supported Democrats in the past did not switch parties because Republican adopted racist policies of Democrats but because the Democrats abandoned those policies and those southern voters, who were already conservative on other issues, naturally drifted to the more conservative political party, the GOP.The Democrats' history on civil rights is a shameful one. After the close of Reconstruction in the South, the Democratic Party took over the region by threatening and intimidating Republican elected officials and voters. During Reconstruction, blacks in the South voted overwhelmingly Republican. Many of the Republicans elected from the South were black. The end of Reconstruction brought the curtain down on two-party competition in the old states of the Confederacy. For more than the next 100 years, the Democratic Party was the only party in the South.
During that century of one party dominance of the region, the Democrats enacted laws mandating segregation. Any attempts blacks made to reassert political power in the region were curtailed by numerous measures adopted by Democrat-dominated legislatures. These included poll taxes, the “White Primary,” literacy tests, etc. Locally, Democrat officials blocked blacks from voting by harassment and intimidation of those who dared try to register. Even as late as the 1960s there were counties in Mississippi, for example, that, although they were majority black, only a tiny percent of those blacks were registered.
President John Kennedy, far from being a leader in the civil rights arena, was dragged kicking and screaming into the debate on the issue. As a Senator, he had opposed a federal anti-lynching law. As a candidate for president he had not supported civil rights legislation for fear of angering white Democrats in the south. It was only when the political winds changed in the early 1960s that JFK came out in favor of the civil rights bill.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 are seen as the triumph of Democrat President Lyndon Johnson. But in fact, both bills enjoyed much wider support among Republicans than Democrats. Over 80% of Republicans supported those two bills, while Democrat support was in the low 60s. The key member of Congress who helped carry those bills was not a Democrat, but a Republican, conservative Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois. Southern Democrats had conducted a filibuster against the bill. Dirksen and the Republicans helped break the filibuster.
The other day, I heard a commentator say that after the civil rights bills, the Republicans immediately took over the South and have dominated it ever since. That simply isn’t correct. Although Republican presidential fortunes in the South turned around in the 1970s, Democrats continued to dominate the region at the other levels of government. It’s only been within the last 20 years that Republicans have become competitive with Democrats in Southern congressional and state legislative districts as well as state-wide offices.
In the political spin Democrats use, Republicans started winning the South because it adopted the racist and segregationist policies that Democrats had abandoned. It is simple-minded rhetoric, backed up by no proof whatsoever. The fact is that many Democrats in the south only voted Democrat because of the history of the Civil War and the fact the party post-Civil War pushed racist, segregationist policies they favored. When the Democrats abandoned these racist, segregationist policies, the reason these conservative voters were voting Democrat was removed. Southerners did not start voting Republican because the GOP adopted the Southern Democrats racist agenda. They started voting Republican because Democrats abandoned their racist agenda.
I have always said that the greatest spin in political history is how the Democrats have persuaded people that their party in fact was the great champion of civil rights. History says otherwise. The fact the Democrats have nominated an African-American for President, speaks well that the party of slavery and segregation has taken the final step in casting aside its shameful racist history. For that, everyone, Republicans and Democrats, should applaud.
See also: Niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. Corrects the Democrats' Revisionist Civil Rights History (9/15/2008)
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Ballard Blasts Legislators for Leaving $12 Million CIB Shortfall; Ogden Suggests Where Mayor Can Find $15 Million Without Raising Taxes
WRTV-TV is reporting that Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard is outraged over the actions of the Indiana General Assembly which did not give him the power to raise taxes like he had sought. The Mayor had proposed rental car tax increases, increases in the hotel tax, increases in the admissions tax and a tax on downtown parking garages as a way of bridging the supposed $47 million operating deficit the Capital Improvement Board is facing.
According to the Channel 6 story:
That leaves the $12 million shortfall the Mayor is complaining about. Hmm, where can the CIB get say $15 million without costing the taxpayers a dime, any cuts in CIB operations, or any loss of convention business? How about this... do not agree to have the taxpayers pick up the $15 million in operating costs on Conseco Fieldhouse, a building in which the taxpayers get 0% of the revenue.
The Pacers are entering the 10 year anniversary of their 20 year contract. That 10 year anniversary gives the team the right to get out of the contract early IF they pay a penalty of $50 million to $125 million dollars. The Pacers are never going to do that. They have no leverage that would require the CIB to reopen that deal and give the billionaire Simon brothers $15 million more per year of our money.
Why do we take the position that if the Pacers or Colts believe they cut a bad deal, it is okay to let them renegotiate it midstream? However, if it is the taxpayers getting screwed by a deal cut with the Colts or Pacers, we'll that is just tough luck.
Not only would foregoing the $15 million solve the Mayor's $12 million complained of shortfall, it would also eliminate the need for Indianapolis to raise the hotel tax at all. The Mayor complains about lost convention business. Does he not realize that raising the hotel tax, to give us nearly the highest combined sales/hotel tax in the country, will do a heck of a lot more to hurt convention business than giving the Simon brothers $15 million more per year for their Pacers franchise?
See Advance Indiana's take on this story by going here.
According to the Channel 6 story:
Mayor Greg Ballard sounded off against state legislators Tuesday for what he called their failure to adequately address the Capital Improvement Board's $47 million operating deficit as the clock ticks toward a midnight state budget deadline.Okay, let's do the math for the Mayor. You start at $47 million. Deduct $10 million in already identified CIB budget cuts. That leaves $37 million. Then you deduct another $25 million in revenue from an increased hotel tax and a loan from the state.
Indianapolis needs legislative help to plug the projected deficit, and Ballard said he is frustrated that lawmakers' latest plan would raise only $25 million annually.
Ballard sought an increase of admissions, car rental and hotel taxes to pay for the operation of Lucas Oil Stadium and other Indianapolis sporting venues. (Note: Actually the Mayor also ask for authority to impose parking fees on downtown garages as another way to generate revenue for the CIB.)
Lawmakers only addressed the hotel tax increase, from 9 percent to 10 percent, in their latest proposal.
That increase, combined with $10 million in operating cuts, would cut into the funding shortfall, but would still leave a $12 million gap.
"It's problematic. It's disappointing, and frankly, the state's the loser. It's the state sales tax revenue really at stake," Ballard said. "I was very clear we need to get over this three or four-year hump. Then, we could re-look at it. If we can't do it with what they are making available to us, we are going to have to make some serious decisions."
Ballard admitted that he doesn't have a Plan B, and said the city will be forced to work with what it has. The mayor said he's concerned that the city's tourism efforts will suffer.
That leaves the $12 million shortfall the Mayor is complaining about. Hmm, where can the CIB get say $15 million without costing the taxpayers a dime, any cuts in CIB operations, or any loss of convention business? How about this... do not agree to have the taxpayers pick up the $15 million in operating costs on Conseco Fieldhouse, a building in which the taxpayers get 0% of the revenue.
The Pacers are entering the 10 year anniversary of their 20 year contract. That 10 year anniversary gives the team the right to get out of the contract early IF they pay a penalty of $50 million to $125 million dollars. The Pacers are never going to do that. They have no leverage that would require the CIB to reopen that deal and give the billionaire Simon brothers $15 million more per year of our money.
Why do we take the position that if the Pacers or Colts believe they cut a bad deal, it is okay to let them renegotiate it midstream? However, if it is the taxpayers getting screwed by a deal cut with the Colts or Pacers, we'll that is just tough luck.
Not only would foregoing the $15 million solve the Mayor's $12 million complained of shortfall, it would also eliminate the need for Indianapolis to raise the hotel tax at all. The Mayor complains about lost convention business. Does he not realize that raising the hotel tax, to give us nearly the highest combined sales/hotel tax in the country, will do a heck of a lot more to hurt convention business than giving the Simon brothers $15 million more per year for their Pacers franchise?
See Advance Indiana's take on this story by going here.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Forgery in the Marion County Courts
I just saw this on the Indianapolis Star on-line. I did not really have any commentary. I just thought the story is one of the most bizarre I have ever heard.
A former IMPD employee who is the wife of a Marion Superior Court judge was arrested Friday on preliminary charges she forged another judge's name to stop foreclosure of their home, according to the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department.
Kristina Nelson, 43, who worked as a civilian public assistance officer for IMPD, told police she had signed Judge Sheila Carlisle's name on a counterfeit document claiming she and her husband had been attacked and ordering Everhome Mortgage to stop the foreclosure until the couple could recover, according to the police report, which was filed Friday.
She told police that her husband, Marion Superior Court Judge William Nelson, knew nothing about the incident. Kristina Nelson is Carlisle’s sister-in-law, the police report said. Carlisle is married to her brother.
Kristina Nelson was released Friday on a $5,000 bond and faces preliminary charges of forgery, according to IMPD and Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi's office. Brizzi's office is seeking the appointment of a special prosecutor to decide on the final charges.
"Given the fact that our deputy prosecutors appear before (William Nelson) Monday through Friday," said Chief of Staff Helen Marchal, "we thought that this would be the best route to go."Kristina Nelson faxed the document to Everhome Mortgage on June 17, according to police. The document said that the Nelson’s had been the victims of an assault and that William Nelson had been shot and Kristina Nelson had suffered injuries that required her jaw to be wired shut — none of which was true, police said.
Carlisle told police investigators the signature was not hers but that she recognized the address as belonging to her sister-in-law, Kristina Nelson, the police report said.
Civilian public assistance officers work at district front desks taking simple reports, among other duties.
Why The Special Session Lingers? Blame Constitutional Convention of 1850 and Indiana's Extremely Weak Governor Veto
As the countdown for the end of the special session is now less than 48 hours, the complaining about our legislature has increased tenfold. It is suggested that we simply have a defective legislature made up of defective individuals. We are told that we have the "worst legislature" in the country.
Personally, I have never bought into the demeaning of the Indiana General Assembly as somehow being a legislative body fundamentally worse than any other legislative body in the country. I don't believe the people who occupy our legislature are any different in nature or quality than those individuals elected to the legislative body of the other 49 states.
Rather I look at whether there might be structural reasons for the logjam, instead of simply taking the easy way out and blaming individuals. Indeed such a structural reason stares one in the face when one examines the structure of Indiana's government.
In 1850, Indiana tossed its existing constitution, to create a new one. In the 1850 Constitution (ratified by the voters in 1851), we gave our governor a very, very weak veto. Indiana is one of the few states, where the governor's veto can be overridden by a simple majority vote, making it virtually useless as a bargaining tool with the legislature. Almost all states in the country have a 2/3 or 3/5 gubernatorial override of a veto. Indiana's constitution was undoubtedly modeled on Kentucky and Tennessee, which also had majority veto overrides in their constitution. But at least Kentucky and Tennessee provided their governor with a line item budget veto. Indiana is one of only seven states in the country where the governor does not have a line item veto.
In short, Indiana has the weakest governor veto in the country, with the exception of North Carolina which grants the governor no veto at all. People do not realize how little power Governor Mitch Daniels has when dealing with the Indiana General Assembly. In Indiana, our legislature reigns supreme and the governor is a bit player in the legislative session.
Without having real veto power in Indiana, a governor in the Hoosier state is hardly in a position to twist legislative arms and force a compromise. Add to the fact that Indiana is a highly divided, partisan state, where Democrats control the House and the Republicans control the Senate. Instead of being surprised that our legislators aren't getting together on a budget, we instead ought to be surprised when they do reach a compromise.
If you want to blame someone, blame those Hoosier leaders who put our current constitution together in 1850. A Governor with a real veto power (2/3 override, line item veto) could have exercised real power in relation to the Indiana General Assembly and forced a compromise.
Personally, I have never bought into the demeaning of the Indiana General Assembly as somehow being a legislative body fundamentally worse than any other legislative body in the country. I don't believe the people who occupy our legislature are any different in nature or quality than those individuals elected to the legislative body of the other 49 states.
Rather I look at whether there might be structural reasons for the logjam, instead of simply taking the easy way out and blaming individuals. Indeed such a structural reason stares one in the face when one examines the structure of Indiana's government.
In 1850, Indiana tossed its existing constitution, to create a new one. In the 1850 Constitution (ratified by the voters in 1851), we gave our governor a very, very weak veto. Indiana is one of the few states, where the governor's veto can be overridden by a simple majority vote, making it virtually useless as a bargaining tool with the legislature. Almost all states in the country have a 2/3 or 3/5 gubernatorial override of a veto. Indiana's constitution was undoubtedly modeled on Kentucky and Tennessee, which also had majority veto overrides in their constitution. But at least Kentucky and Tennessee provided their governor with a line item budget veto. Indiana is one of only seven states in the country where the governor does not have a line item veto.
In short, Indiana has the weakest governor veto in the country, with the exception of North Carolina which grants the governor no veto at all. People do not realize how little power Governor Mitch Daniels has when dealing with the Indiana General Assembly. In Indiana, our legislature reigns supreme and the governor is a bit player in the legislative session.
Without having real veto power in Indiana, a governor in the Hoosier state is hardly in a position to twist legislative arms and force a compromise. Add to the fact that Indiana is a highly divided, partisan state, where Democrats control the House and the Republicans control the Senate. Instead of being surprised that our legislators aren't getting together on a budget, we instead ought to be surprised when they do reach a compromise.
If you want to blame someone, blame those Hoosier leaders who put our current constitution together in 1850. A Governor with a real veto power (2/3 override, line item veto) could have exercised real power in relation to the Indiana General Assembly and forced a compromise.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Indianapolis Mayor Ballard Proposes Tax On Downtown Workers; Warning to Republicans on Indianapolis City County Council
Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard has changed his Capital Improvement Board bailout proposal so many times that perhaps missed this past week was a significant change. Before Ballard proposed increases in rental tax car taxes, hotel/motel tax and admissions taxes on tickets to events at CIB venues, like Lucas Oil Stadium, Conseco Fieldhouse and Victory Field.
Under this scenario, spokesperson for the Mayor set out to sell the tax increases as not impacting local residents. It was a disingenuous argument from the beginning. Studies show that rental cars are rented mostly by local residents not out-of-towners. And while the hotel/motel tax is not paid directly by local residents, it most assuredly is felt by the workers in the form of stagnant wages and lost jobs as visitors opt against renting Indianapolis hotel rooms due to the increased cost of those rooms. Indianapolis is already nearing the highest combined sales/innkeeper tax in the country. That means Indianapolis becomes a target to having its convention business stolen as competing cities point out Indianapolis' high taxes as a reason to move the convention to their city.
At a budget committee hearing last week Mayor Ballard announced he was ditching the Governor Daniels' proposal regarding more CIB cuts and instead included proposals to gain more tax revenue, including a new proposal: allowing the city the power to charge fees at Downtown parking garages, which City Controller David Reynolds said could generate between $1 million and $1.5 million for the city each year.
As a matter of political strategy, I have long warned my fellow Republicans that the Mayor's idea that voters going into 2011 are going to distinguish between different types of taxes and conclude that a tax that supposedly just affects visitors is okay, is almost certain to fail. People hear the word "tax" and everything afterwards that falls on deaf ears. What is doubly worse for these tax increases is what the taxpayers perceive their taxes are going for. No matter matter how hard the Mayor and his people spin, the public perceives the taxes are not to save convention business, but instead are to bail out the CIB for excessive subsidies for professional sports. And you know what? They are right.
What makes the Mayor's position that this not about professional sports even more obviously disingenuous is the fact that at the same time he proposes raising taxes by millions of dollars, he also proposes giving the billionaire Simons brothers $15 million more of our tax dollars to pay the operating costs on Conseco Fieldhouse, a building from which their team, the Indiana Pacers, get 100% of the revenue. Even though the Pacers have no leverage whatsoever to demand this $15 million, the City and the CIB are bound and determined to give it to them anyway, and to raise taxes in order to be able to do it. That speaks boatloads about how the business elites have come to dominate this city over the interests of the taxpayers.
Now with the parking tax, Mayor Ballard has dropped the pretense that the tax increases won't affect local taxpayers. The proposed tax increases for downtown parking garages will directly impact those garages and the downtown workers who park there. The ruse is over.
As the legislature nears the end of the special session, most likely the issue of these tax increases will come back to the Indianapolis City County Council. I would strongly warn my fellow Republicans on the Council: If you vote for those tax increases, you not only are ensuring a Democratic Mayor and a Democratic majority in the council in 2011, you are ensuring that the Republicans will be written off into minority status in the Marion County for decades to come. No one is going to believe the Republican Party is a party of lower taxes if we increase taxes to bail out the CIB, whose deficit due almost entirely to excessive professional sports subsidies. Mayor Ballard has made it clear he intends to commit political suicide on the CIB bailout by pushing for higher taxes despite overwhelming public opposition. Do not follow his lead. Do not drink the Kool-Aid of higher taxes for professional sports.
Under this scenario, spokesperson for the Mayor set out to sell the tax increases as not impacting local residents. It was a disingenuous argument from the beginning. Studies show that rental cars are rented mostly by local residents not out-of-towners. And while the hotel/motel tax is not paid directly by local residents, it most assuredly is felt by the workers in the form of stagnant wages and lost jobs as visitors opt against renting Indianapolis hotel rooms due to the increased cost of those rooms. Indianapolis is already nearing the highest combined sales/innkeeper tax in the country. That means Indianapolis becomes a target to having its convention business stolen as competing cities point out Indianapolis' high taxes as a reason to move the convention to their city.
At a budget committee hearing last week Mayor Ballard announced he was ditching the Governor Daniels' proposal regarding more CIB cuts and instead included proposals to gain more tax revenue, including a new proposal: allowing the city the power to charge fees at Downtown parking garages, which City Controller David Reynolds said could generate between $1 million and $1.5 million for the city each year.
As a matter of political strategy, I have long warned my fellow Republicans that the Mayor's idea that voters going into 2011 are going to distinguish between different types of taxes and conclude that a tax that supposedly just affects visitors is okay, is almost certain to fail. People hear the word "tax" and everything afterwards that falls on deaf ears. What is doubly worse for these tax increases is what the taxpayers perceive their taxes are going for. No matter matter how hard the Mayor and his people spin, the public perceives the taxes are not to save convention business, but instead are to bail out the CIB for excessive subsidies for professional sports. And you know what? They are right.
What makes the Mayor's position that this not about professional sports even more obviously disingenuous is the fact that at the same time he proposes raising taxes by millions of dollars, he also proposes giving the billionaire Simons brothers $15 million more of our tax dollars to pay the operating costs on Conseco Fieldhouse, a building from which their team, the Indiana Pacers, get 100% of the revenue. Even though the Pacers have no leverage whatsoever to demand this $15 million, the City and the CIB are bound and determined to give it to them anyway, and to raise taxes in order to be able to do it. That speaks boatloads about how the business elites have come to dominate this city over the interests of the taxpayers.
Now with the parking tax, Mayor Ballard has dropped the pretense that the tax increases won't affect local taxpayers. The proposed tax increases for downtown parking garages will directly impact those garages and the downtown workers who park there. The ruse is over.
As the legislature nears the end of the special session, most likely the issue of these tax increases will come back to the Indianapolis City County Council. I would strongly warn my fellow Republicans on the Council: If you vote for those tax increases, you not only are ensuring a Democratic Mayor and a Democratic majority in the council in 2011, you are ensuring that the Republicans will be written off into minority status in the Marion County for decades to come. No one is going to believe the Republican Party is a party of lower taxes if we increase taxes to bail out the CIB, whose deficit due almost entirely to excessive professional sports subsidies. Mayor Ballard has made it clear he intends to commit political suicide on the CIB bailout by pushing for higher taxes despite overwhelming public opposition. Do not follow his lead. Do not drink the Kool-Aid of higher taxes for professional sports.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Americans for the Arts Exposed
In the previous post below, I noted the supposed Americans for the Arts supposed study showing that the city's $2.5 million investment in the arts netted Indianapolis $500 million, a phenomenal return of 20,000%. Why shouldn't we believe an outfit called the "Americans for the Arts?"
In its website, Americans for the Arts outlines its mission:
In its website, Americans for the Arts outlines its mission:
With offices in Washington, DC and New York, and more than 5,000 organizational and individual members and stakeholders across the country, we are focused on three primary goals:
- Foster an environment in which the arts can thrive and contribute to the creation of more livable communities.
- Generate more public- and private-sector resources for the arts and arts ducation.
- Build individual appreciation of the value of the arts.
To achieve our goals, we partner with local, state, and national arts organizations; government agencies; business leaders; individual philanthropists; educators; and funders throughout the country. We provide extensive arts industry research, and information and professional development opportunities for community arts leaders via specialized programs and services, including a content-rich website and an annual national convention.
Local arts agencies throughout the United States comprise our core constituency. A variety of unique stakeholder groups with particular interests like public art, united arts fundraising, rural and small communities, state arts agencies, and emerging arts leaders are also supported.
Through national visibility and local outreach, we strive to motivate and mobilize opinion leaders and decision-makers who can make the arts thrive in America.
Ah, Americans for the Arts...yet another philanthropic group out there just trying to promote starving artists nationwide, right? Uh, no. Let's take a look at the salaries of the organization's executives.
- Robert Lynch, President and CEO, $654,848
- Mara Walker, Chief Planning Officer, $174,760
- Nina Ozlu, Chief Counsel, $191,998
- Gary Steuer, V.P. Private Sector Affairs, $180,530
- Robert B. Stanley, V.P. Finance, $152,319
- Marrc Ian Tobias, V.P. Operations, $145,653
- Randy Cohen, V.P. Res & Info, $165,926
According to its 2007 tax return, Americans for the Arts total revenue in 2007 was $7,927,309. That year they spent almost $6 million of its income on salaries and benefits for its officers and employees. How much of that revenue did its "constituent" arts groups including the Arts Council of Indianapolis receive? In 2007, Americans for the Arts spent $1,155,755 on its "constituents," which is not even a 1/4 of what the organization spent on its own salaries and benefits.
Other interesting figures from the 2007 return include that the Americans for the Arts has over $160 million in accumulated assets, including over $24 million invested in stocks and securities.
Supporters of the arts might want to think twice before giving money to an organization that is obviously more interested in enriching themselves financially than helping out starving artists.
Nuvo's David Hoppe Warns of "Arts Crisis"; Promotes More of Our Tax Dollars Going to Wasteful Indianapolis Arts Council
Today, I discuss David Hoppe's recent column in Nuvo, in which he warns us of an "arts crisis" and bemoans further cuts in arts spending. In particular, he cites the need for the city to keep pumping more money into the Arts Council of Indianapolis, which I have already cited as one of the nonprofits in this city that has been wasting our tax dollars.
Hoppe tells his tearful tale:
In 2007, the Arts Council received a grant of $738,500 from the Capital Improvement Board and $1,450,500 from the Parks Department. Total government contributions are listed on their 2007 tax return totaled $3,082.284, which appears to be about 2/3 of the organization's revenue in 2007. Officers of the Arts Council, made the following in salaries and benefits, according to the 2007 return:
As far as other non-profit arts organizations, Maxwell Anderson, President and CEO of the Indianapolis Museum of Arts pulls down $394,209 while Anne Munch, Chief Financial Officer makes $150,938. Simon Crookall, President and CEO of the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra hauls in $250,224. Henry Leck, Founder and Artistic Director of the Children's Choir (which this year received a crime fighting grant) takes in $111,214. Jeffrey Patchen of the Children's Museum makes $344,345. This information is gathered from the most recent tax returns available.
Hoppe's tearful request for more tax dollars falls on deaf ears. Unless the arts community stops its wasteful spending on lavish salaries for administrative staff, our elected officials should not even consider giving the community more of our tax dollars.
Hoppe tells his tearful tale:
[I]in talking about his decision to close [his gallary, Mark] Ruschman added an important postscript. He said that if he was looking to start a new gallery, he wasn't sure he would choose to put it in Indianapolis. That's because the recent cuts to arts funding send a troubling signal about the larger community's support for the arts.I can't ignore that investment statistic cited in the Hoppe article. So an investment of $2.5 million in 2007 produced revenue for Indianapolis in the amount of $500 million? That's a 20,000% return. If that were the case, why would we invest in anything other than the arts? I'd love to see how "Americans for the Arts" came up with that phony number. My guess is the organization simply took how much the city spends on arts and compared it to how much revenue the arts allegedly brings to the city's economy. Such an approach makes the preposterous leap in logic that the city's expenditure on arts was completely and solely responsible for all the art revenue in the city. (To see the "Americans for the Arts" exposed, click here.)
The use of public funds for the arts in Indianapolis has been an unqualified success. According to a recent study by Americans for the Arts, Indianapolis' modest annual investment of $2.5 million in 2007 reaped almost a half billion dollars in revenue for the city.
But this hasn't been enough to keep these funds from being cut over the past few months as the city has been forced to deal with a combination of fiscal problems. Although the cuts have had little more than a symbolic impact on the fiscal problems, their impact on the arts community is dire.
Cuts to the arts line of the Parks and Recreation Budget and the expected elimination of arts funding from the Capital Improvement Board budget will reduce local arts funding to less than a million dollars, effectively erasing hard won gains made during the Peterson Administration. Informed sources speculate that more cuts could be in store. The City-County Council, with the tacit approval of Mayor Ballard, appears dangerously eager to make political points by cutting what remains of the Arts Council budget.
In any event, a decade's worth of trying to persuade the city's leadership class that arts and culture are key to whether or not Indianapolis reaches the next level as an urban destination is being dismantled with breathtaking speed. The arguments that have shown that the arts contribute to economic vitality, neighborhood development, improved education and safer streets have been brushed aside. When Ballard addressed a rally of arts advocates on the Circle, all he could say was that the creative community needed to do a better job of promoting itself. Incredibly, the audience received this exhausted version of blame-the-victim with polite applause.
Looming now is the grim prospect of the city's arts organizations engaging in dog-eat-dog fund raising, a zero-sum game that will favor large institutions over fledgling start-ups to an even greater extent than is already the case. If this happens, Indianapolis will be the big loser. Such a competition will amount to a clear-cutting of the city's cultural eco-system; landmark institutions will become increasingly isolated as young and independent creatives move to more hospitable environments.
The need to overhaul how the city's cultural sector raises money, disperses funds and communicates has never been more imperative. This isn't merely a matter of saving the Arts Council, useful as that office has been to the community. For while the Arts Council has played a crucial administrative role, facilitating and channeling opportunities like the Lilly Endowment's Creative Renewal Fellowship program and the Cultural Development Commission's public sculpture initiative, it has also found itself in an awkward political spot, having to grin and bear the clueless nonsense that passes for cultural policy for fear of reprisals from the city's leadership.
Over the past few years, the arts community has managed to rally for causes like relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and HIV/AIDS. The time has come for this community to coalesce around its own survival. This won't be easy. It will fly in the face of long and habitual practice that has understandably defined self-interest in the most one-sided terms: my building, my budget, my audience. But if the arts here are to amount to anything more than discrete attractions the city uses to sweeten its pitch to conventioneers, this kind of thinking must be overcome in favor of a more holistic vision. There needs to be less emphasis on community and more on the idea of alliance.
To be powerless in an environment where power is the defining force is a terrible thing. This, sadly, is where the Indianapolis arts scene finds itself. Politicians have been able to treat cultural policy here with cavalier indifference, believing they can do so without danger of losing support. It is now up to our creative class to organize and find ways to resist this foreclosure on the city's future.
In 2007, the Arts Council received a grant of $738,500 from the Capital Improvement Board and $1,450,500 from the Parks Department. Total government contributions are listed on their 2007 tax return totaled $3,082.284, which appears to be about 2/3 of the organization's revenue in 2007. Officers of the Arts Council, made the following in salaries and benefits, according to the 2007 return:
- Greg Charleston, President and CEO, over $170,000
- Janet Boston, Director of Marketing, over $84,000
- Mike Prusa, Artsgarden Director, nearly $70,000
- David Lawrence, Vice President, over $107,000
- Mindy Taylor-Ross, Director of Public Art, over $86,000
- Shannon Linker, Director of Artist Services, over $62,000
As far as other non-profit arts organizations, Maxwell Anderson, President and CEO of the Indianapolis Museum of Arts pulls down $394,209 while Anne Munch, Chief Financial Officer makes $150,938. Simon Crookall, President and CEO of the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra hauls in $250,224. Henry Leck, Founder and Artistic Director of the Children's Choir (which this year received a crime fighting grant) takes in $111,214. Jeffrey Patchen of the Children's Museum makes $344,345. This information is gathered from the most recent tax returns available.
Hoppe's tearful request for more tax dollars falls on deaf ears. Unless the arts community stops its wasteful spending on lavish salaries for administrative staff, our elected officials should not even consider giving the community more of our tax dollars.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Ballard Explains CIB Bailout to Corporate Elites; Leaves Public Opinion Behind
Over at Indianapolis Times, blogger and Democratic activist Terry Burns tells of the meeting Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard and his staff had with the city's corporate elites to update them on the progress of the CIB bailout, i.e. his tax increase plan that recently passed the Indiana Senate. Burns reports:
Mayor Ballard is wrong for not taking a more bipartisan approach, whatever his plan is. Hopefully not all the Republicans will drink the Kool-Aid of raising taxes for professional sports subsidies which will be the political death of many a Council Republican in 2011. That means the Mayor will need Democrat votes. My guess is Minority Leaders Joanne Sanders will send him a few votes from safe seats so she can hang the CIB tax increases around the necks of the Republicans in 2011. It's an obvious political strategy.
The real problem though is that Mayor Ballard continues to care not one whit about any opinion except those corporate elites who have long dominated the politics of this city. What Mayor Ballard does not understand is that his own election ushered in a period of populist ascendancy in this city. Mayor Ballard though turned his back on the very people, the populists and tax activists, who helped him get elected and who would give him any chance of getting elected. On Election Night he claimed an end to Indianapolis country club politics then went out and became its worst practitioner.
Mayor Ballard seems oblivious to the continually growing taxpayer anger at his administration. He seems to believe that taxpayers will distinguish the different types of taxes and say these targeted taxes (which ironically are aimed at the very industry he claims he wants to save) are okay. They won't. Repeat after me, Mayor, a tax is a tax is a tax. The public is not going to hear anything after the phrase "tax increase."
But the political danger is not just in raising taxes, but it is what those taxes are used for. Mayor Ballard continues to spin the tall tale that these tax increases have nothing to do with professional sports. Of course, the reason the CIB is in its current hole is giveaways to the professional sports teams. Additionally, it won't be lost on the public that the amount of the tax increases in the amount that virtually mirrors the $15 million annual amount the CIB and this administration have decided to give to the billionaire Simons family. Mayor Ballard is raising taxes to hand money to billionaires. That's the sound bite and it is completely true.
Mayor Ballard is not salvageable politically at this point. Hopefully though Council Republicans make a better choice if and when the issue of tax increases for the bailout comes before the City County Council.
As we reported yesterday, Mayor Greg Ballard and state Sen. Jim Merritt called together civic leaders on Thursday to discuss "important" information about efforts to bailout the Capital Improvement Board.While Burns runs an interesting blog with an outstanding layout, he never stops being a Democratic partisan. I don't know if he has ever criticized a single Democrat on his blog. And he seems to have fixated on Senator Merritt as a potential target for Democrats in 2010 and has singled him out for special criticism. But on this score Burns is correct on one point while missing another.
So what happened? Nothing. What "important" information was discussed? None.
As one participant said, "It was just rehash of the Senate plan" to save the CIB. "It was nothing new."
The mayor, however, did reveal that he and Chief of Staff Paul Okeson will be testifying later today before a Statehouse conference committee to beg for a legislative bailout and the massive tax increases that go along with it.
(You really have to wonder why Ballard and Merritt still insist on having these meaningless meetings. Is it all for show? Is the mayor trying dispel the notion that he lacks even basic leadership skills? Is Merritt really that concerned about his re-election chances?)
This list of invitees (in no particular order) to Thursday's meeting: Bill Mays; Brian Payne; Dave Frick; Dave Reynolds; David Lewis; Frank Hancock; Frank Short; Greg Sease; Greg Shaheen; James Wallis; Jean Farison; Jeff Smulyan; Jerry Semler; Jim Dora Jr.; Jim Merritt; Joe DeGroff; Joe Slash; John Griffin; Lesa Dietrick; Mark Fisher; Mark Miles; P. E. MacAllister; Paul Okeson; Phil Bayt; Phil Borst; Roland Dorson; Steve Sullivan; Steve Walker; Susan Williams; Tamara Zahn; Tanya Bell; Toby McClamroch; Tom O'Neil; Turea Dabney.
It's an interesting list, especially when you consider it doesn't include a single Democrat from the City-County Council. It's a pretty safe bet that Ballard is going to need a some Democratic help on the council to pass a CIB bailout package (translation: massive tax increases) because he certainly doesn't have enough votes from the council's Republican caucus.
Mayor Ballard is wrong for not taking a more bipartisan approach, whatever his plan is. Hopefully not all the Republicans will drink the Kool-Aid of raising taxes for professional sports subsidies which will be the political death of many a Council Republican in 2011. That means the Mayor will need Democrat votes. My guess is Minority Leaders Joanne Sanders will send him a few votes from safe seats so she can hang the CIB tax increases around the necks of the Republicans in 2011. It's an obvious political strategy.
The real problem though is that Mayor Ballard continues to care not one whit about any opinion except those corporate elites who have long dominated the politics of this city. What Mayor Ballard does not understand is that his own election ushered in a period of populist ascendancy in this city. Mayor Ballard though turned his back on the very people, the populists and tax activists, who helped him get elected and who would give him any chance of getting elected. On Election Night he claimed an end to Indianapolis country club politics then went out and became its worst practitioner.
Mayor Ballard seems oblivious to the continually growing taxpayer anger at his administration. He seems to believe that taxpayers will distinguish the different types of taxes and say these targeted taxes (which ironically are aimed at the very industry he claims he wants to save) are okay. They won't. Repeat after me, Mayor, a tax is a tax is a tax. The public is not going to hear anything after the phrase "tax increase."
But the political danger is not just in raising taxes, but it is what those taxes are used for. Mayor Ballard continues to spin the tall tale that these tax increases have nothing to do with professional sports. Of course, the reason the CIB is in its current hole is giveaways to the professional sports teams. Additionally, it won't be lost on the public that the amount of the tax increases in the amount that virtually mirrors the $15 million annual amount the CIB and this administration have decided to give to the billionaire Simons family. Mayor Ballard is raising taxes to hand money to billionaires. That's the sound bite and it is completely true.
Mayor Ballard is not salvageable politically at this point. Hopefully though Council Republicans make a better choice if and when the issue of tax increases for the bailout comes before the City County Council.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Climate Change Hysteria Visits Indiana; Alarmists Ignore 4.5 Billion Year Climate History of Planet
Today's front page of the Indianapolis Star reports on a new government led study, using previously gathered data, which suggests the effect of climate change. I have previously addressed the issue of climate change, formerly simply referred to as "global warming."
This study is noteworthy because compared to past reports, this one does cite to significant benefits from a warmer planet including shorter, milder winters and a longer growing season resulting in more productive harvests.
That doesn't prevent some of the alarmists from ringing the bell anyway and declaring the debate over. J.C. Randolph, director of Indiana University's Center for Research in Energy and Environment, is quoted in the Star article "the debate over whether climate change is happening -- is over . The thing is trying to figure out how to help solve the problem."
Randolph, and many the global warming alarmists, simply do not connect the dots.
Let's return to the start. Is the Earth currently undergoing a warming trend? Absolutely. Is man responsible? Of course, for at least some of that increase, man is responsible. Increased human activity does increase global temperatures. For example, if you have an open field and you pave over it to make a parking lot, you're raising the overall surface temperature. You do that a million times over, and there will be an upward effect on global temperatures. (It should be noted that when atmospheric temperatures rather than surface temperatures are reviewed, the warming has been less.)
The question is not whether human activity is affecting global temperatures, but how much. The fact is our 4.5 billion year old planet has always gone through periods of warming and cooling. We have major climatic events which raise or lower temperatures. In between these bigger spikes, the temperatures zig and zag back and forth in warming and cooling cycles lasting hundreds if not thousands of years.
The problem is that the temperature data used to sound the global warming hysteria is based on only about the last 150 years, when temperature data has been collected. There is no doubt we are on an upward zig in temperatures. But the scientists are simply taking that tiny amount of data and employing computer models to extrapolate that data out, ignoring the history of short term (hundreds or thousands of years) fluctuating temperatures that follow a zig-zag pattern between major climatic events.
Even if what Randolph and his cohorts say is true, they leap to a conclusion that a change in climatic temperatures would devastate the planet. Given the extraordinary changes in temperature in Earth's 4.5 billion years, why would anyone think today's temperature is the ideal temperature? Yet virtually every global warming alarmist simply accepts as true that today's temperature is the best.
Although temperatures have been recorded for only about the last 150 years, there are other ways of measuring the Earth's temperature. Chief among those is to drill down into the Earth's surface and measure the chemical content of the various layers. Like trees, the surface of the Earth has a ring representing each year, telling a different story of what happened during that year. Examining the chemical content of those rings, scientists can provide a remarkably accurate climatic picture more than a billion years back into the past, not just the past 150 years. The global warming alarmists ignore this long-term climatic data, instead choosing to feed into their computers only the recorded data of the last 150 years.
The long-term climatic data undermine the alarmists and their agenda. It shows a planet that has forever moved through periods of rising and lowering temperatures, including sometimes dramatic shifts, even before man arrived. Even if the alarmists were willing to look beyond the 150 most recent years to look at the time of Earth during the time of modern man walked the Earth, the past 10,000 years or so, they would find exactly why the dots do not connect. At no time during that period has a warming Earth resulted in the decline in the fortunes of man.
The Earth's history has shown man has always done better during periods of warming, including periods when the Earth was warmer than today. It is when global temperatures fall that man has suffered set-backs, including the spread of deadly disease. For example, the great plague (sometimes referred to as the "bubonic plague") of the 1300s that wiped out 25% to 50% of Europe's population happened during a cooling period (what is often referred to as
"The Little Ice Age" which lasted until the middle 1700s), not a warming period. The disease was borne by fleas carried by rats. The colder temperatures didn't stop the transmission of the disease. The newest report ignores history, suggesting insect-borne diseases will increase with warmer temperatures.
Bottom line is Randolph and other alarmists fail to connect the dots - yes they make the case that temperatures are warming but fail to show 1) that this isn't really more than part of a larger trend and 2) how rising temperatures is a "problem." Will there be winners and losers if temperatures rise? Absolutely. For example, the person in Minnesota is going to benefit greatly while someone living in Florida will experience more warming that isn't desired. But history tells us that warming temperatures, the problem cited by Randolph, is something that has previously greatly benefited mankind. In fact, the alarmists would cannot point to a single example where warming global temperatures has been harmful to mankind.
But the alarmists aren't interested in the 4.5 billion year climatic history of Earth. They are interested in just the last 150 years and feeding that data into their computer models to provide scary scenarios which will prompt government to take action. It is a situation where the anti-growth political agenda of certain scientists has distorted what should be an objective, academic search for scientific truth. When politics corrupts science, as it happens in the global warming debate, we all end up losing.
This study is noteworthy because compared to past reports, this one does cite to significant benefits from a warmer planet including shorter, milder winters and a longer growing season resulting in more productive harvests.
That doesn't prevent some of the alarmists from ringing the bell anyway and declaring the debate over. J.C. Randolph, director of Indiana University's Center for Research in Energy and Environment, is quoted in the Star article "the debate over whether climate change is happening -- is over . The thing is trying to figure out how to help solve the problem."
Randolph, and many the global warming alarmists, simply do not connect the dots.
Let's return to the start. Is the Earth currently undergoing a warming trend? Absolutely. Is man responsible? Of course, for at least some of that increase, man is responsible. Increased human activity does increase global temperatures. For example, if you have an open field and you pave over it to make a parking lot, you're raising the overall surface temperature. You do that a million times over, and there will be an upward effect on global temperatures. (It should be noted that when atmospheric temperatures rather than surface temperatures are reviewed, the warming has been less.)
The question is not whether human activity is affecting global temperatures, but how much. The fact is our 4.5 billion year old planet has always gone through periods of warming and cooling. We have major climatic events which raise or lower temperatures. In between these bigger spikes, the temperatures zig and zag back and forth in warming and cooling cycles lasting hundreds if not thousands of years.
The problem is that the temperature data used to sound the global warming hysteria is based on only about the last 150 years, when temperature data has been collected. There is no doubt we are on an upward zig in temperatures. But the scientists are simply taking that tiny amount of data and employing computer models to extrapolate that data out, ignoring the history of short term (hundreds or thousands of years) fluctuating temperatures that follow a zig-zag pattern between major climatic events.
Even if what Randolph and his cohorts say is true, they leap to a conclusion that a change in climatic temperatures would devastate the planet. Given the extraordinary changes in temperature in Earth's 4.5 billion years, why would anyone think today's temperature is the ideal temperature? Yet virtually every global warming alarmist simply accepts as true that today's temperature is the best.
Although temperatures have been recorded for only about the last 150 years, there are other ways of measuring the Earth's temperature. Chief among those is to drill down into the Earth's surface and measure the chemical content of the various layers. Like trees, the surface of the Earth has a ring representing each year, telling a different story of what happened during that year. Examining the chemical content of those rings, scientists can provide a remarkably accurate climatic picture more than a billion years back into the past, not just the past 150 years. The global warming alarmists ignore this long-term climatic data, instead choosing to feed into their computers only the recorded data of the last 150 years.
The long-term climatic data undermine the alarmists and their agenda. It shows a planet that has forever moved through periods of rising and lowering temperatures, including sometimes dramatic shifts, even before man arrived. Even if the alarmists were willing to look beyond the 150 most recent years to look at the time of Earth during the time of modern man walked the Earth, the past 10,000 years or so, they would find exactly why the dots do not connect. At no time during that period has a warming Earth resulted in the decline in the fortunes of man.
The Earth's history has shown man has always done better during periods of warming, including periods when the Earth was warmer than today. It is when global temperatures fall that man has suffered set-backs, including the spread of deadly disease. For example, the great plague (sometimes referred to as the "bubonic plague") of the 1300s that wiped out 25% to 50% of Europe's population happened during a cooling period (what is often referred to as
"The Little Ice Age" which lasted until the middle 1700s), not a warming period. The disease was borne by fleas carried by rats. The colder temperatures didn't stop the transmission of the disease. The newest report ignores history, suggesting insect-borne diseases will increase with warmer temperatures.
Bottom line is Randolph and other alarmists fail to connect the dots - yes they make the case that temperatures are warming but fail to show 1) that this isn't really more than part of a larger trend and 2) how rising temperatures is a "problem." Will there be winners and losers if temperatures rise? Absolutely. For example, the person in Minnesota is going to benefit greatly while someone living in Florida will experience more warming that isn't desired. But history tells us that warming temperatures, the problem cited by Randolph, is something that has previously greatly benefited mankind. In fact, the alarmists would cannot point to a single example where warming global temperatures has been harmful to mankind.
But the alarmists aren't interested in the 4.5 billion year climatic history of Earth. They are interested in just the last 150 years and feeding that data into their computer models to provide scary scenarios which will prompt government to take action. It is a situation where the anti-growth political agenda of certain scientists has distorted what should be an objective, academic search for scientific truth. When politics corrupts science, as it happens in the global warming debate, we all end up losing.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Washington Township School Superintendent James Mervilde Puts Himself First, Kids Nowhere in Sight
Over at Advance Indiana, Gary Welsh reports on the Washington Township (Marion County) putting himself first when it comes to a whopping pay increase to his already bloated salary. Worse yet he's trying to get a boost of $124,700 in his pension benefit.
Welsh states:
Superintendent Mervilde should be ashamed of his efforts to pad his own salary and benefits while residents in Washington Township struggle with unemployment, foreclosures, and high property taxes caused by the excessive spending in Washington Township Schools. It's too bad that Washington Township doesn't have more board members like Greg Wright, who is a true defender of taxpayers.
Contrary to what many people claim, this state's taxpayers haven't short-changed education. In fact we've dramatically increased education spending over the past few decades. The problem is the money often doesn't make it to the classroom, instead ending in the pockets of bloated administrative staff, which includes Superintendents like Mervilde.
Welsh states:
Washington Township Superintendent James Mervilde, who already has a salary and compensation benefit package worth more than a quarter million dollars annually, will see an increase in his annual salary of 7% and a $124,800 boost in his pension benefit, if the township's school board approves a proposed renegotiation of his salary and benefits at its meeting tomorrow night. This comes at a time the school district is expecting little or no additional state funding from the proposed state budget. Moreover, at least half of the school district's middle and elementary schools are failing at least one category of the state ISTEP test.
Dr. Mervilde is currently paid an annual salary of $171,600 under a contract that is set to expire on June 30, 2010. Mervilde exercised his right to renegotiate his current 3-year contract prior to its expiration. He is seeking an increase of 7% in his annual salary through June 30, 2011, taking it to $183,500. The biggest change, however, is in a proposed revision that will require taxpayers to purchase four years of credit time for Mervilde in the state teachers retirement system at a cost of $31,000 per year, or $124,000.
I'm told that this has become a common negotiating strategy for superintendents like Mervilde who are nearing retirement age to ask a school district to purchase credit time for purposes of calculating their retirement benefit. In lieu of a larger salary increase, the additional credit time the school district purchases on the school district official's behalf ensures a much higher retirement benefit for the employee. The school official is not taxed on the credit time purchase, enhancing its value to him or her greatly. These benefits are often not explained to the public to allow them to properly evaluate how much school officials are being paid.
School board member Greg Wright believes the nearly $200,000 salary and
benefits increase for Mervilde is too costly. “These are tough economic times for many in our community," Wright said. " Increasing any municipal employee’s employment contract by hundreds of thousands of dollars is simply outrageous.”
Superintendent Mervilde should be ashamed of his efforts to pad his own salary and benefits while residents in Washington Township struggle with unemployment, foreclosures, and high property taxes caused by the excessive spending in Washington Township Schools. It's too bad that Washington Township doesn't have more board members like Greg Wright, who is a true defender of taxpayers.
Contrary to what many people claim, this state's taxpayers haven't short-changed education. In fact we've dramatically increased education spending over the past few decades. The problem is the money often doesn't make it to the classroom, instead ending in the pockets of bloated administrative staff, which includes Superintendents like Mervilde.
Ballard Administration Enlists Indianapolis Children's Choir To Fight Crime
At an anti-crime rally Monday at Wishard Hospital, Public Safety Director lauded the crime fighting efforts of the Ballard administration by bragging how the administration has given away $4.5 million in "community crime-prevention grants" to 60 organizations.
Front and center in the Star article on the rally is a $50,000 grant the administration gave to the Indianapolis Children's choir. The choir runs a program with Dance Kaleidoscope and the Madame Walker Theater Center. Dan Steffy, the choir's executive director conceded they don't spend time battling crime, but justified the grant saying, "[w]e help prevent crime just by the nature of what we do."
Or the money could go to the salaries the choir pays out. You would think an outfit called the "Children's Choir" would consist of interested local citizens contributing their time, right? Think again. This is Indianapolis. Henry Leck, founder and artistic director of the choir, makes $111,214 according to the organization's most recent tax return. Steffy hauls in $83,127, Janet Bishop, Managing Director, makes $57,228
The print version of the star lists the six top crime fighting grants given out by the Ballard administration this year:
Front and center in the Star article on the rally is a $50,000 grant the administration gave to the Indianapolis Children's choir. The choir runs a program with Dance Kaleidoscope and the Madame Walker Theater Center. Dan Steffy, the choir's executive director conceded they don't spend time battling crime, but justified the grant saying, "[w]e help prevent crime just by the nature of what we do."
Or the money could go to the salaries the choir pays out. You would think an outfit called the "Children's Choir" would consist of interested local citizens contributing their time, right? Think again. This is Indianapolis. Henry Leck, founder and artistic director of the choir, makes $111,214 according to the organization's most recent tax return. Steffy hauls in $83,127, Janet Bishop, Managing Director, makes $57,228
The print version of the star lists the six top crime fighting grants given out by the Ballard administration this year:
- United Neighborhood Centers: $440,000
- Wishard Health Centers $257,000
- Fathers and Families Center $200,000
- Indianapolis Ten Point Coalition $170,000
- Indianapolis Downtown, Inc. $160,000
- Progress House, Inc. $160,000
I previously did an expose on Indianapolis Downtown, Inc. which has stashed away millions in investments, most of which originated as taxpayers dollars, while paying its officers lavish salaries.
If the administration insists on giving away taxpayer money on projects only indirectly associated with curbing crime, one wonders why fixing the pools for this summer's swim season did not rank as a higher priority.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Profiting Off Of Indianapolis' Non-Profit Corporations
This morning I present a sampling of the salaries Indianapolis non-profit corporations are paying. The information was gathered from looking at their most recent tax returns available. Those tax records are public record due to their non-profit status. I concentrated on picking out non-profit corporations which receive government support, in many cases substantial support.
Note the calculations include salary plus other contributions. They do not include expense accounts.
ARTS COUNCIL OF INDIANAPOLIS, INC.
President & CEO
CHILDREN'S BUREAU OF INDIANAPOLIS
Ron Carpenter, $178,298
President & CEO
Janice Klein, $114,168
Executive VP & COO,
Clara Anderson, $109,280
Executive VP & CAO
Susan Meyer, $104,566
Executive VP & CFO
Jon Bennett, $103,812
Executive Vice President
Note: The Children's Bureau, also listed nine other officers making between $77,000 and $65,000. The Bureau provides serves for at-risk youth and received over $11 million in government support in 2007.
HUMANE SOCIETY OF INDIANAPOLIS
Martha Boden, $119,622
Executive Director
Update: As David Horth, Board Chair of the Humane Society points out in the comment section, the Humane Society does not take taxpayer dollars. I double checked the tax return...he is correct. My apologies to the Humane Society for lumping them in with the other non-profits living on the public teat. Mr. Horth allso points out that the Executive Director of the Humane Society of Indianapolis is John Aleshire and his salary is $93,500.00. Boden is the former director and was the director whose salary was listed on the tax return. Unfortunately with regard to all these non-profits, the information is somewhat dated. That director's salary seems very reasonable, especially in light of what some of these other non-profits are paying.
INDIANA SPORTS CORPORATION
Susan Williams, $137,719
President & CEO
INDIANAPOLIS CHILDREN'S MUSEUM
Jeffrey Patchen, $344,345
President
INDIANAPOLIS CONVENTION & VISITORS ASSOCIATION
Robert Bedell, $353,777
President & CEO
Matthew B. Carter, $142,343
V.P, Strategic Development
Alfred D. Bennett, $142,579
V.P, Sales
Mary K. Huggard, $144,637
V.P., Communication and Development
James E. Wallis, $136,858
V.P., Finance Administration and Technology
INDIANAPOLIS DOWNTOWN
Tamara Zahn, $198,284
President & CEO
Julia Watson, $108,000
Vice President, Marketing & Communications
INDIANAPOLIS MARION COUNTY LIBRARY FOUNDATION
Danny R. Dean, $178,907
President
INDIANAPOLIS MUSEUM OF ART
Maxwell Anderson, $394,209
President & CEO
Anne Munch, $150,938
Chief Financial Officer
INDIANAPOLIS PARKS FOUNDATION
Cindy Porteous, $112,219
Executive Director,
INDIANAPOLIS SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
Simon Crookall, $250,224
President & CEO
METROPOLITAN INDIANAPOLIS PUBLIC BROADCASTING
Lloyd Wright, $180,451
President
Note the calculations include salary plus other contributions. They do not include expense accounts.
ARTS COUNCIL OF INDIANAPOLIS, INC.
Greg Charleston, $170,391
President & CEO
David Lawrence, $116,344
Vice President
Note: From its website, the Arts Council appears to have 19 paid employees.
CENTRAL INDIANA CORPORATE PARTNERSHIP, INC.
Mark Miles, $382,133President & CEO
CHILDREN'S BUREAU OF INDIANAPOLIS
Ron Carpenter, $178,298
President & CEO
Janice Klein, $114,168
Executive VP & COO,
Clara Anderson, $109,280
Executive VP & CAO
Susan Meyer, $104,566
Executive VP & CFO
Jon Bennett, $103,812
Executive Vice President
Note: The Children's Bureau, also listed nine other officers making between $77,000 and $65,000. The Bureau provides serves for at-risk youth and received over $11 million in government support in 2007.
HUMANE SOCIETY OF INDIANAPOLIS
Martha Boden, $119,622
Executive Director
Update: As David Horth, Board Chair of the Humane Society points out in the comment section, the Humane Society does not take taxpayer dollars. I double checked the tax return...he is correct. My apologies to the Humane Society for lumping them in with the other non-profits living on the public teat. Mr. Horth allso points out that the Executive Director of the Humane Society of Indianapolis is John Aleshire and his salary is $93,500.00. Boden is the former director and was the director whose salary was listed on the tax return. Unfortunately with regard to all these non-profits, the information is somewhat dated. That director's salary seems very reasonable, especially in light of what some of these other non-profits are paying.
INDIANA SPORTS CORPORATION
Susan Williams, $137,719
President & CEO
INDIANAPOLIS CHILDREN'S MUSEUM
Jeffrey Patchen, $344,345
President
INDIANAPOLIS CONVENTION & VISITORS ASSOCIATION
Robert Bedell, $353,777
President & CEO
Matthew B. Carter, $142,343
V.P, Strategic Development
Alfred D. Bennett, $142,579
V.P, Sales
Mary K. Huggard, $144,637
V.P., Communication and Development
James E. Wallis, $136,858
V.P., Finance Administration and Technology
INDIANAPOLIS DOWNTOWN
Tamara Zahn, $198,284
President & CEO
Julia Watson, $108,000
Vice President, Marketing & Communications
INDIANAPOLIS MARION COUNTY LIBRARY FOUNDATION
Danny R. Dean, $178,907
President
INDIANAPOLIS MUSEUM OF ART
Maxwell Anderson, $394,209
President & CEO
Anne Munch, $150,938
Chief Financial Officer
INDIANAPOLIS PARKS FOUNDATION
Cindy Porteous, $112,219
Executive Director,
INDIANAPOLIS SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
Simon Crookall, $250,224
President & CEO
METROPOLITAN INDIANAPOLIS PUBLIC BROADCASTING
Lloyd Wright, $180,451
President
Friday, June 19, 2009
Defection Scenarios Involving Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard
Over at the Indianapolis Times, editor of that blog Terry Burns has filed several posts suggesting that Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard is job hunting and intends to forgo re-election to take a management position somewhere, possibly with a non-profit. Here is one of them. The theory is that Indianapolis Republican power brokers are forcing the Mayor out of running for re-election so that a "big name" like Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi can run for Mayor in 2011.
The first part of the scenario sounds very possible. The second part makes absolutely no political sense.
First, the notion that Mayor Ballard would forego re-election at this point seems very possible. His post-election popularity has been flushed down the toilet by numerous missteps, including the never-ending CIB fiasco. If he runs in 2011, it will be virtually impossible to overcome those negatives. Instead he could choose to walk out a winner, having defeated a formerly popular mayor. Ballard could slip easily into the management of one of Indianapolis' non-profits wish pay extremely well and provide lavish benefits.
However, for a "big name" Republican to step up in 2011 to run, after Ballard has so tarnished the Republican brand in Marion County, makes no political sense. Carol Brizzi has successfully navigated the increasingly Democratic landscape that is Marion County. Why would he risk a third time running the gauntlet, this time weighed down by Ballard's baggage?
Let me pose, however, another scenario. Let's assume that Ballard is job hunting. Instead of waiting for the end of his term to take that job, he instead decides to leave early, let's say in early 2010.
Should Ballard leave early, the Mayor's replacement by law is filled by a caucus of all the precinct committeemen in Marion County. In reality, the process is easily open to manipulation by party leaders who fill vacancies with "mummy-dummies" whose appointment is solely for the purpose of voting for the candidate the party leaders want. In this scenario it will be people like Marion County GOP Chairman Tom John and Hamilton County resident and Center Area chairman controlling who the next Mayor of Indianapolis is.
What is the difference between the replacement scenario I outline and new candidate scenario Burns suggests? The Ballard replacement scenario provides for an opportunity for a rehabilitation, a period during which a new Republican can swoop into office and dramatically turn things around on the 25th Floor. Given the low bar Ballard has set, there would be a terrific opportunity for a replacement Mayor to come off looking like a strong, effective leader. The period could be used effectively for the new Republican mayor to springboard toward re-election. A bigger name Republican might be interested in this scenario, while the big names are going to shy away from the scenario Burns suggests where they simply run for an office tarnished by Ballard's legacy of ineptitude.
Is the replacement scenario likely to happen? No. But from a political standpoint it does make a certain amount of sense.
The first part of the scenario sounds very possible. The second part makes absolutely no political sense.
First, the notion that Mayor Ballard would forego re-election at this point seems very possible. His post-election popularity has been flushed down the toilet by numerous missteps, including the never-ending CIB fiasco. If he runs in 2011, it will be virtually impossible to overcome those negatives. Instead he could choose to walk out a winner, having defeated a formerly popular mayor. Ballard could slip easily into the management of one of Indianapolis' non-profits wish pay extremely well and provide lavish benefits.
However, for a "big name" Republican to step up in 2011 to run, after Ballard has so tarnished the Republican brand in Marion County, makes no political sense. Carol Brizzi has successfully navigated the increasingly Democratic landscape that is Marion County. Why would he risk a third time running the gauntlet, this time weighed down by Ballard's baggage?
Let me pose, however, another scenario. Let's assume that Ballard is job hunting. Instead of waiting for the end of his term to take that job, he instead decides to leave early, let's say in early 2010.
Should Ballard leave early, the Mayor's replacement by law is filled by a caucus of all the precinct committeemen in Marion County. In reality, the process is easily open to manipulation by party leaders who fill vacancies with "mummy-dummies" whose appointment is solely for the purpose of voting for the candidate the party leaders want. In this scenario it will be people like Marion County GOP Chairman Tom John and Hamilton County resident and Center Area chairman controlling who the next Mayor of Indianapolis is.
What is the difference between the replacement scenario I outline and new candidate scenario Burns suggests? The Ballard replacement scenario provides for an opportunity for a rehabilitation, a period during which a new Republican can swoop into office and dramatically turn things around on the 25th Floor. Given the low bar Ballard has set, there would be a terrific opportunity for a replacement Mayor to come off looking like a strong, effective leader. The period could be used effectively for the new Republican mayor to springboard toward re-election. A bigger name Republican might be interested in this scenario, while the big names are going to shy away from the scenario Burns suggests where they simply run for an office tarnished by Ballard's legacy of ineptitude.
Is the replacement scenario likely to happen? No. But from a political standpoint it does make a certain amount of sense.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Star Swallows CIB Spin, Public Not Convinced
While teaching at IUPUI a number of years ago, I taught a class on how politicians and elected officials use the media. One of the class topics was the "Art of Spin," how politicians try to shape not only public perception but how they try to influence reporters in how they cover their story. Good reporters are vigilant about not buying into the spin and giving people the facts.
For most of the past year, the City and the CIB have been in spin mode. They tell us that the need for a CIB bailout, including tax increases, has nothing to do with sports, and is instead about protecting the convention/hospitality business. They talk about how tax increases that hit hard the hospitality industry for the bailout are needed to protect jobs in the hospitality industry.
Usually the general public is easier to spin than reporters who are supposed to be viewing things with a more critical eye. The CIB bailout saga is an example of the opposite. While the public ain't buying the CIB spin one bit, reporters have started to incorporate the spin in their stories and editorials.
Today's example comes from the Indianapolis Star. The Star's staff editorial criticizes the Mayor for waffling on which plan he supports to bail out the Capital Improvement Board. While it is valid criticism, what I find interesting is how the editorial reflects that the Star has completely bought the CIB spin. Let's examine some quotes from the editorial:
"A decision by the House Democratic leadership to kill off a rescue package for the Indianapolis' troubled Capital Improvement Board is disappointing."
"Rescue package?" The Star reporters and editorials have all started to call the plan a "rescue" instead of a "bailout." If you look back at the early stories on CIB problems they all referred to it as a "bailout." The City/CIB spinsters knew that "bailout," especially today, has a negative connotation. So they worked to get reporters to use "rescue" instead. Who doesn't want to "rescue" something? Amazingly, reporters, in particular those of the Indianapolis Star, completely bought the spin and started substituting "rescue" for "bailout" in their stories. Given its nearly almost uniform usage now, I would not be surprised if there was at some point a staff meeting where the reporters were told to use "rescue" instead of "bailout."
"Worse, if not reversed, the move would seriously jeopardize the strength of the city's convention and tourism industry, the source of tens of thousands of jobs in Central Indiana."
The Mayor and the CIB have been spinning this nonsense all along and they found a taker when it comes to the Indianapolis Star. First, of all the 66,000 hospitality job figure the administration keeps citing are hospitality jobs in the Central Indiana area. Many of the jobs aren't even in Marion County. Probably only a small fraction of that amount have jobs related to the downtown convention business.
Second, how exactly does the proposal to raise taxes that hits hard the convention and tourism industry, giving us the highest or nearly highest hospitality taxes in the country, a move that is going to protect convention and tourism jobs? Again, people aren't buying it. But the Indianapolis Star is.
"Two weeks ago, the mayor stood with Gov. Mitch Daniels at a press conference and hailed a fresh proposal to erase the CIB's projected $47 million [deficit] through a mix of spending cuts and targeted tax increases."
Reporters, television and newspapers, keep repeating the lie about the $47 million deficit. That includes a $15 million gift to the Pacers, in the form of the CIB picking up the organization's operating costs to run a building on which the Pacers get 100% of the revenue. But the CIB has never taken a vote to pick up this $15 million which couldn't have happened until this Fall anyway when the Pacers reach their 10 year anniversary on their Conseco Fieldhouse contract. Rather the City and the CIB simply went about including the $15 million whenever they mentioned deficit. Instead of being more discerning, reporters started simply repeating the $47 million number as the deficit figure. The spin by the CIB was deliberate. They knew the Pacers $15 million gift would not fly as a separate item. So the CIB strategists decided to just start lumping it into the deficit. The newspapers bought it. The public did not.
If the Star wants a good CIB topic for an editorial, the editors might try a very easy one: Come out against giving the Simons brothers, the billionaire owners of the Pacers, $15 million more of our tax money while the CIB is, allegedly, already in the hole $32 million dollars.
For most of the past year, the City and the CIB have been in spin mode. They tell us that the need for a CIB bailout, including tax increases, has nothing to do with sports, and is instead about protecting the convention/hospitality business. They talk about how tax increases that hit hard the hospitality industry for the bailout are needed to protect jobs in the hospitality industry.
Usually the general public is easier to spin than reporters who are supposed to be viewing things with a more critical eye. The CIB bailout saga is an example of the opposite. While the public ain't buying the CIB spin one bit, reporters have started to incorporate the spin in their stories and editorials.
Today's example comes from the Indianapolis Star. The Star's staff editorial criticizes the Mayor for waffling on which plan he supports to bail out the Capital Improvement Board. While it is valid criticism, what I find interesting is how the editorial reflects that the Star has completely bought the CIB spin. Let's examine some quotes from the editorial:
"A decision by the House Democratic leadership to kill off a rescue package for the Indianapolis' troubled Capital Improvement Board is disappointing."
"Rescue package?" The Star reporters and editorials have all started to call the plan a "rescue" instead of a "bailout." If you look back at the early stories on CIB problems they all referred to it as a "bailout." The City/CIB spinsters knew that "bailout," especially today, has a negative connotation. So they worked to get reporters to use "rescue" instead. Who doesn't want to "rescue" something? Amazingly, reporters, in particular those of the Indianapolis Star, completely bought the spin and started substituting "rescue" for "bailout" in their stories. Given its nearly almost uniform usage now, I would not be surprised if there was at some point a staff meeting where the reporters were told to use "rescue" instead of "bailout."
"Worse, if not reversed, the move would seriously jeopardize the strength of the city's convention and tourism industry, the source of tens of thousands of jobs in Central Indiana."
The Mayor and the CIB have been spinning this nonsense all along and they found a taker when it comes to the Indianapolis Star. First, of all the 66,000 hospitality job figure the administration keeps citing are hospitality jobs in the Central Indiana area. Many of the jobs aren't even in Marion County. Probably only a small fraction of that amount have jobs related to the downtown convention business.
Second, how exactly does the proposal to raise taxes that hits hard the convention and tourism industry, giving us the highest or nearly highest hospitality taxes in the country, a move that is going to protect convention and tourism jobs? Again, people aren't buying it. But the Indianapolis Star is.
"Two weeks ago, the mayor stood with Gov. Mitch Daniels at a press conference and hailed a fresh proposal to erase the CIB's projected $47 million [deficit] through a mix of spending cuts and targeted tax increases."
Reporters, television and newspapers, keep repeating the lie about the $47 million deficit. That includes a $15 million gift to the Pacers, in the form of the CIB picking up the organization's operating costs to run a building on which the Pacers get 100% of the revenue. But the CIB has never taken a vote to pick up this $15 million which couldn't have happened until this Fall anyway when the Pacers reach their 10 year anniversary on their Conseco Fieldhouse contract. Rather the City and the CIB simply went about including the $15 million whenever they mentioned deficit. Instead of being more discerning, reporters started simply repeating the $47 million number as the deficit figure. The spin by the CIB was deliberate. They knew the Pacers $15 million gift would not fly as a separate item. So the CIB strategists decided to just start lumping it into the deficit. The newspapers bought it. The public did not.
If the Star wants a good CIB topic for an editorial, the editors might try a very easy one: Come out against giving the Simons brothers, the billionaire owners of the Pacers, $15 million more of our tax money while the CIB is, allegedly, already in the hole $32 million dollars.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Governor Daniels Names Carol Cutter as New Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance
I was happy to hear of Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels' latest appointment, Deputy Commissioner Carol Cutter to replace outgoing Department of Insurance Commissioner who is moving to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.
Up until the Fall of 2007, I worked as manager of the Title Insurance Division. While my interaction with the other regulatory units within the Department was not extensive, I came away extremely impressed with the professionalism and dedication of so many of the regulators who work at the Department. They take their work seriously, understanding that their role is not only to regulate the industry but to serve the public. Carol has over 30 years experience working in insurance, both in the private sector and in a regulatory capacity.
Carol was one of those impressive regulators. Carol currently serves as Chief Deputy Commissioner for Health and Legislative Affairs. According to the Governor's press release, she led efforts to eliminate an 18-month backlog of rate and form filings for health, life, and property/casualty products in her first two years on the job. The release also touts that Cutter helped establish a self-certification process for life and annuity rate and form filings to allow for a faster turnaround for approval of those insurance products for marketing.
As someone involved in politics, I certainly don't begrudge the Governor when he appoints individuals with more of a political than a regulatory background to various agency heads. In fact, doing so often brings fresh ideas and a broader perspective to government service. But having said that, the Governor is right to also consider as potential agency heads those career professionals who are doing stellar jobs and deserve to be considered for the top spot. I think the insurance industry will be extremely pleased with the leadership Carol Cutter will bring to the Department of Insurance.
Up until the Fall of 2007, I worked as manager of the Title Insurance Division. While my interaction with the other regulatory units within the Department was not extensive, I came away extremely impressed with the professionalism and dedication of so many of the regulators who work at the Department. They take their work seriously, understanding that their role is not only to regulate the industry but to serve the public. Carol has over 30 years experience working in insurance, both in the private sector and in a regulatory capacity.
Carol was one of those impressive regulators. Carol currently serves as Chief Deputy Commissioner for Health and Legislative Affairs. According to the Governor's press release, she led efforts to eliminate an 18-month backlog of rate and form filings for health, life, and property/casualty products in her first two years on the job. The release also touts that Cutter helped establish a self-certification process for life and annuity rate and form filings to allow for a faster turnaround for approval of those insurance products for marketing.
As someone involved in politics, I certainly don't begrudge the Governor when he appoints individuals with more of a political than a regulatory background to various agency heads. In fact, doing so often brings fresh ideas and a broader perspective to government service. But having said that, the Governor is right to also consider as potential agency heads those career professionals who are doing stellar jobs and deserve to be considered for the top spot. I think the insurance industry will be extremely pleased with the leadership Carol Cutter will bring to the Department of Insurance.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The Monon-Kroger Expressway, Courtesy of City Leaders
I am not sure how I missed the story about one of Indy's newest public-private partnerships. The Indianapolis Star reports that Kroger has signed a 20 year contract to maintain 600 feet of the Monon trail on the city's northside. In exchange, Kroger has been permitted to build right next to the trail, just south of 86th Street. This will involve knocking down thirteen trees in the area that previously provided trail users with a shaded canopy when traveling through the area. The artist rendering of what the development will look like shows the Monon converted to a nice, unshaded path all the way up to Krogers.
Isn't the whole point of the Monon is that it is a park, that people can ride through the city while experiencing trees, nature, and the great outdoors? Development is important, but why does it have to be right on the trail? What's next, a Wal-Mart at Eagle Creek Park?
If this continues, the Monon could be turned into nothing more than a nice sidewalk between stores.
Isn't the whole point of the Monon is that it is a park, that people can ride through the city while experiencing trees, nature, and the great outdoors? Development is important, but why does it have to be right on the trail? What's next, a Wal-Mart at Eagle Creek Park?
If this continues, the Monon could be turned into nothing more than a nice sidewalk between stores.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Yet More Pay to Play Indianapolis Politics? Activist Alleges That Indygo Roof Project Bid Rigged in Favor of Politically Connected Company
Over at Welcome to My Teaparty blog, the ever viligant Diana Vice rings the alarm about Indianapolis taxpayers possibly being ripped off by another overly expensive roof project brought to you by the politically-connected Tremco:
Let me try to summarize what is going on. Diana Vice has battled Tremco for some time on the failure to follow state bidding laws when it came to school roofing projects. In particular, networking through a purchasing agent, Tremco was not being required to go through the bidding process to win school roofing jobs. Those roofs would often cost 3 times what other roofs would cost.
Diana Vice won when the Attorney General's Office, finally, issued an opinion saying that these projects need to be bid out. What you're seeing alleged here is that Tremco is employing Plan B. When you can't get around the bidding rules, you It's simply have your buddies putting together the bid write the specifications in such a way that only your company can quality. That is the claim Diana Vice is making, which she has, as always, researched thoroughly and displayed on her website.
To say that the the Indygo roof bid process may have been rigged to favor politically-connected Tremco is about as much as a surprise as walking into a casino and find gambling going on. Indianapolis is a hotbed of pay-to-play politics. Tremco hires the biggest, most politically-connected law firms which will aggressively pursue citizens like Diana Vice who dare to speak out about possible violations of Indiana's bidding laws by Tremco and those the company works with to secure bids. Previously I wrote extensively about the SLAPP lawsuit filed against Diana Vice by Tremco and the need for legislative reform to put the stop to such actions by government contractors. The idea of suing citizens for expressing their free speech rights is as repugnant as anything I have seen in my 21 years of practicing law.
Although issues regarding bidding can be complex, it is something that concerned taxpayers need to keep an eye on.
You can find here a letter from a roofing industry consultant concerned that the Indygo bidding process may have been rigged in favor of Tremco violation of anti-trust, bid rigging and racketeering laws.
According to roofing industry sources, several Indiana roofing businesses have filed or are planning to file complaints with the Indianapolis Deputy Mayor and IndyGo for what they perceive to be unfair bidding and business practices initiated by the city's public transportation entity for a large and expensive roofing project.Diana Vice proceeds to ask city officials some very pertinent questions about how the bidding specifications were written. The rest of her post can be found here.
Those complaining say that a 400,000 square foot roofing project may end up costing taxpayers much more than it should, and that the specifications are written in such a way that it shuts out competition to favor Tremco, an Ohio-based roofing manufacturer.
According to the bid documents, Jeff Cacioppo is listed as the roofing consultant for the IndyGo project. Cacioppo was the Tremco contact for the AEPA no-bid roofing scheme that was recently declared to be illegal by Indiana's Attorney General. Indiana roofing businesses have complained that they were shut out of competition for millions of dollars in school roofing projects before the scheme was shut down by state officials, and now they are crying foul over the tactics used by city administrators for this latest public works project.
None of this makes sense to Indiana roofing business owners and employees, who are wondering why a roof consultant from Ohio was involved in the first place. They say there are many qualified roof consultants in Indiana, and that scarce tax dollars should not be benefiting the economy of a neighboring state when Indiana's own economy could use a boost.
Some say this is especially insulting to Firestone Products, a world leader in the manufacturing of roofing products and materials. Firestone's world headquarters is located in Indianapolis, Indiana, and yet according to roofing industry sources, the Indiana company is shut out of the IndyGo job. Company officials of the international company are reportedly angry at this latest controversy involving public works projects in Indiana.
Let me try to summarize what is going on. Diana Vice has battled Tremco for some time on the failure to follow state bidding laws when it came to school roofing projects. In particular, networking through a purchasing agent, Tremco was not being required to go through the bidding process to win school roofing jobs. Those roofs would often cost 3 times what other roofs would cost.
Diana Vice won when the Attorney General's Office, finally, issued an opinion saying that these projects need to be bid out. What you're seeing alleged here is that Tremco is employing Plan B. When you can't get around the bidding rules, you It's simply have your buddies putting together the bid write the specifications in such a way that only your company can quality. That is the claim Diana Vice is making, which she has, as always, researched thoroughly and displayed on her website.
To say that the the Indygo roof bid process may have been rigged to favor politically-connected Tremco is about as much as a surprise as walking into a casino and find gambling going on. Indianapolis is a hotbed of pay-to-play politics. Tremco hires the biggest, most politically-connected law firms which will aggressively pursue citizens like Diana Vice who dare to speak out about possible violations of Indiana's bidding laws by Tremco and those the company works with to secure bids. Previously I wrote extensively about the SLAPP lawsuit filed against Diana Vice by Tremco and the need for legislative reform to put the stop to such actions by government contractors. The idea of suing citizens for expressing their free speech rights is as repugnant as anything I have seen in my 21 years of practicing law.
Although issues regarding bidding can be complex, it is something that concerned taxpayers need to keep an eye on.
You can find here a letter from a roofing industry consultant concerned that the Indygo bidding process may have been rigged in favor of Tremco violation of anti-trust, bid rigging and racketeering laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
