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

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE: 

Broad Ripple Village Association

Special Public Meeting

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

Broad Ripple United Methodist Church (6185 Guilford Ave.) 

Proposed development by Browning Investments, Inc.

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

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

 ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want to buy a cold beer in Indiana?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, what are the odds?

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

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

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

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indianapolis At-Large Councilor Zach Adamson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black Voter Participation Rates Outstrip Whites for First Time

Amos Brown

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

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

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

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


Brown produces an interesting story which is worth reading. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fred Glass, IU Athletic Director

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

The Star article then goes on to describe Rochville:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

behaviors, is back.

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

 ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governor Mike Pence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gov. Mark Sanford

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he knows redemption is in sight.

...

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

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

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

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

Elizabeth Colbert Busch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Lesson for Indianapolis?; Cricket Stadium in Florida to be Redeveloped After It Fails to Generate Revenue

It appears that the other community in the United States that took a run at cricket as economic development flopped.  Will Indianapolis learn from this city's mistake or will our city leaders insist Indianapolis will be different and charge full speed ahead into the cricket business?   I'm guessing the latter.

Journalist Peter Della Pena reports in a story printed on ESPNCrickInfo among other places:

In a move that could strike a devastating blow to the development of cricket in America, the

city of Lauderhill, Florida is in the process of initiating a business plan to redevelop the cricket stadium inside the Central Broward Regional Park into a facility more suitable for other sports and activities that will generate enough revenue to sustain the operating costs of the facility. In a sternly worded letter by Lauderhill Mayor Richard J Kaplan addressed to ICC chief executive David Richardson dated April 9 and obtained by ESPNcricinfo, Kaplan blames the USA Cricket Association for the facility's lack of revenue from marquee cricket events mainly due to the governing body's failure to facilitate such events.

"After several years of under utilization by our sanctioning cricket body USACA, the City of Lauderhill and Broward County have had to look at other alternative uses for the stadium that will sell tickets to fill seats," Kaplan wrote. "As a result, Broward County is about to release an independent business plan which will advise government officials that it is time to consider a reconfiguration of the stadium to a sport that can better sustain the facility and provide an economic return."

The 20,000 capacity stadium opened in November 2007 as part of a $70 million county park complex. It is the only ICC approved ODI stadium facility in North America. Since it opened though, the stadium has been a lightning rod for criticism among local media and taxpayers in south Florida. An article in August 2009 in the South Florida Sun Sentinel titled, "Broward Built It, But Cricket Hasn't Come" detailed frustrations from the local community at the paltry attendance figures drawn for cricket matches in the stadium. An editorial in the same newspaper in August 2011 about the Central Broward Regional Park referred to the facility as "a legendary example of Broward officials setting taxpayer money on fire."

The stadium has rarely been used for cricket over the last five and a half years but has seen many other sports use the cricket pitch. Among the matches staged on the stadium turf have been flag football tournaments, MLS exhibition matches, FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup warm-up matches, a semi-pro gridiron league and a 2011 IRB Rugby World Cup qualifying match between USA and Uruguay. 2012 ICC World Cricket League Division Four was tentatively scheduled to be held in Florida last May with the stadium serving as one of three tournament venues, but USACA's governance issues, including repeatedly postponed elections, resulted in the event shifting to Malaysia later in the year. 

 The article goes on to note the criticism of the the USA Cricket Association for poor management.

Kaplan's letter to Richardson is particularly stinging in his summary of USACA's credentials and reputation stating that the organization "is still suffering from management issues" and that its "long sordid history of suspensions and poor governance has plagued a territory with the greatest potential." The mayor goes on to state that the pair of Twenty20 matches staged at the stadium in Lauderhill last year between the West Indies and New Zealand proved that the city and county were capable of staging world class events, but despite encouragement from local government officials and business leaders, USACA has failed to help make similar events happen.

To see the rest of the article, click here

Federal Grants and Civil Forfeiture: The Real Story Behind the Drug Task Force Prostitution Busts

Ryan Sabalow of the Indianapolis Star this morning has a nice article questioning the police methods involved in the prostitution busts of Chinese immigrants at northside massage parlors.  Here's a taste of the excellent lengthy article:

About 1 p.m. on Dec. 19, a man walked into the Dove Spa, a massage parlor in a nondescript Carmel commercial strip, and asked for the services of one of the women working there.

What the woman didn’t know was the man was an undercover police officer, wearing a wire. And what the woman did next, detectives now allege, was illegal: In exchange for $100 plus a $35 tip, she fondled the officer’s genitals.

Four more times the officer went back, according to a probable-cause affidavit released this week. During that time, over five months, the officer also visited a massage parlor in Zionsville. And each time, he allowed the women — all Chinese immigrants — to fondle him in exchange for cash, all in a fight against prostitution and human trafficking.

Officers say such methods led to a victory for Carmel and Zionsville on Wednesday, when 30 officers raided two businesses, arresting six people — four alleged prostitutes and two alleged pimps.

But the methods police say were needed to shut down a sophisticated prostitution ring were criticized Thursday by legal and law-enforcement experts and women’s advocates as excessive, unnecessary and misapplied to an investigation that involved possible human trafficking.

A good place to stop and examine.  No doubt it is excessive for 30 police officers to be involved in raiding two massage parlors.  But one thing the writer missed in an otherwise excellent article questioning the tactics is the money angle.  The "human trafficking" claim is always bandied about when these busts of massage parlors run by immigrants, particularly those of Chinese descent.  But it is rarely part of the charge.  Almost always it is simply old fashioned prostitution going  In this case most of the women allegedly prostituting themselves are in their 40s, not the type of subjects for a human slavery ring.

So why make a claim of "human trafficking?"  Follow the money.  The federal government provides
grants to state and local government (and sometimes nonprofits), to combat human trafficking.  This is money to pay police officers and buy equipment that doesn't come out of their local budget.   So what if the busts don't actually reveal any "human trafficking" going on.   It's not like they have to pay the money back.

It wouldn't be surprising to find out that the local officials received a federal grant to conduct the sting.  In 2011, the Denver Police Department received $300,000 from the United States Justice Department to combat human trafficking..  In September of 2012, the Ohio Attorney General's Office, and, strangely, the Salvation Army in Central Ohio, received a $700,000 grant for human trafficking work.

But that is not where the money bounty ends.  In the Hamilton/Boone County busts law enforcement officials walked away with $250,000 cash, including money seized from bank accounts (which undoubtedly was done before a hearing was even held.)  As the article states:

The nearly $250,000 seized in the case may go back into the budget of the drug task force that conducted the nine-month sting.

 A drug task force conducted the sting?   Yep.  The Hamilton and Boone County Drug Task Force led the investigation and the raids.  Yet it apparently had nothing to do with drugs, just massage parlors about the sex.

Of course, as I've tirelessly pointed out on this blog, Indiana law only permits law enforcement agencies to keep civil forfeiture proceeds to cover the cost of the law enforcement action.  The rest is supposed to be paid to the Common School Fund.   But county judges, who are supposed to be making that determination of law enforcement costs at the end of the civil forfeiture case and ensuring the balance gets paid to the state, have not been enforcing the law, even though the Indiana Supreme Court has pointed out that requirement in a decision just a couple years ago..  As a result, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials have been walking away with 100% of the civil forfeiture proceeds in virtually every county in Indiana that practices civil forfeiture.  This includes Hamilton and Boone County law enforcement officials which are two of the counties that have not paid a dime to the Common School Fund in the five years or so I looked at in my review.

So let me simplify.  So a drug task force needing money for its operations targets two businesses, run by immigrants, which businesses have nothing to do with drugs but which can provide the task force with a pile of cash for its operations.  Which is the bigger crime, the allegation of prostitution or the a government agency shaking down a bunch of immigrants for cash?

Bright Student Expelled and Charged With Felonies for Science Experiment

The adults in this story should be charged with felonies for stupidity.  From the Washington Times Communities blog:

As Reason Magazine and WTSP.com in Florida report, “Meet Kiera Wilmot is a 16-year-old student in Bartow, Florida. Before last week, Bartow High School Principal Ron Pritchard told WTSP-TV, she had “never been in trouble before. Ever.”

Kiera Wilmont

Curious to experiment for an upcoming Science Fair, Wilmot mixed toilet bowl cleaner and aluminum foil in a tiny 8-ounce water bottle. The student was unsure what to expect, but heard from a friend the mixture would produce non-toxic smoke. The concoction caused the bottle top to pop off and, in fact, produce smoke.

Assistant Principal Dan Durham reportedly heard the noise, investigated and called the police. The arrest report can be reviewed here.

The chemicals were legal and no one was hurt, but the activity violated the school’s code of conduct, which mandates expulsion for any “student in possession of a bomb or explosive device…while at a school, a school activity or a school bus…unless it’s used as part of a school-related activity sanctioned by and conducted by a teacher.”

...

Polk County School administrators released a statement supporting their actions:

“Anytime a student makes a bad choice it is disappointing to us. Unfortunately, the incident that occurred at Bartow High School yesterday was a sercious breach of conduct. In order to maintain a safe and orderly learning environment, we simply must uphold our code of conduct rules. We urge our parents to join us in conveying the message that there are consequences to actions. We will not compromise the safety and security of our students and staff.”

Wilmot has apparently now been charged with two felonies, possession/discharge of a weapon on school property and discharging a destructive device,” according to Florida-based WTSP news. Both charges are felonies. The plan is to try her as an adult. As a convicted felon, of course she will be facing a far different future than had been expected from this bright young woman.

The Washington Times Communities blog proceeds to offer excellent commentary on the subject:

Kiera Wilmot’s story raises a series of troubling questions. This could happen to any student. Classmates, the Principal and the student herself clarified this was no act of malevolence, but school administrators and law enforcement pursued charges to ensure “safety and security”. Have this nation’s schools become such mindless, bureaucratic prisons that all reason is forfeit?

...

Zero tolerance policies can be effective, but all involved seem to indicate this was a mistake, an act of curiosity gone wrong. Does this not set a precedent that even if no one is injured, the very possibility of injury warrants ruining a 16-year old student’s life? Since when do innocent accidents warrant prison sentences?

How do Polk County bureaucrats have the power to ruin a child’s life over an honest mistake? Why are school administrators no longer serving their community and their students, but lording over schools like wardens? How are teachers expected to inspire and challenge students under such stifling conditions? Where is the community of Bartow in response to this overreaction that could result in a bright young woman being thrown into jail?

Silly risks should not be encouraged, but unreasonable, ridiculous responses like this send a frightening message to curious students: step out of line, make a mistake and you and your parent’s lives can be ruined. If this is the punishment for experimentation, how can we expect the current educational paradigm to produce more Ben Franklins, or Nicola Teslas?

Does America not need more scientists and engineers? Isn’t the reality of science perpetual failure until discovery? How many of the bright minds of tomorrow are stifled by fear of cruel and unusual punishment at the hands of bureaucrats? Should we emphasize that one bad decision determines a lifetime of punishment, such as being deemed a felonious criminal?

Perhaps the best punishment for this exceptional student would have been a lengthy assignment detailing safety measures. If necessary, perhaps an essay explaining what she learned with a thorough plan to not repeat risky experiments again without closer teacher supervision. Perhaps, if administrators were interested in their student’s future and less about the momentary thrill of exercising power over others, Wilmot could have been encouraged to pursue a track in science.

Schools across America should be places for students to explore their curiosity safely and wisely. Educating our students on precautionary measures when accidents occur cultivates wonder while minimizing risk. Reprimanding dangerous behavior appropriately should be our focus as an advanced, civilized society.

We should all be outraged when low-level bureaucrats reprimand accidental, harmless mistakes with life-destroying felony charges....

Richest Man in the World Profits Off Program that Provides Cell Phones for the Poor

Bloomberg reports:

Congressional Republicans want to rein in a $2.2 billion U.S. mobile-phone subsidy for the poor, saying it’s riddled with fraud and benefits the world’s richest man, Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim.

Richest Man in the World Carlos Slim

Slim’s TracFone Wireless Inc. received about a quarter of the funds from the U.S. government’s Lifeline program, according to the latest figures. ...

Billionaire Carlos Slim owns Mexico’s biggest phone company America Movil SAB, which offers mobile service in 17 Latin American countries and the U.S.“...
Slim owns Mexico’s biggest phone company, America Movil SAB (AMXL), which offers mobile service in 17 Latin American countries and the U.S. Its TracFone unit is the largest recipient under the U.S. Federal Communication Commission’s Lifeline program, taking in $451.7 million, or 28 percent, of payments in 2011, the last year for which records are available.
...


The Lifeline program subsidizes monthly service, and carriers give away phones. Recipients generally can’t earn more than 135 percent of the federal poverty line, which in most states is $23,550 for a family of four.

...

The program has seen “explosive growth,” said Representative Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, at the hearing. “It’s why so many of our constituents are questioning the program and are questioning the use of the ’Obama phones’ as they are commonly called.”

Started in 1985, Lifeline pays companies $9.25 per customer per month. It disbursed $772 million in 2008 and $2.2 billion last year, according to the Universal Service Administrative Co., a Washington-based nonprofit that oversees the subsidies.

TracFone is the largest prepaid wireless company in the U.S., with 23.2 million customers at the end of March and $4.8 billion in revenue last year. Lifeline accounts for about 3.6 million of those customers, Fuentes said.

TV Shows Migrate to Internet As Television Medium Continues to Evolve

I found this story on-line.  It reveals how television continues to evolve, becoming a more online medium:

In Soap Opera Land, a character who dies isn’t always dead. Just think of Bobby Ewing on ’80s nighttime soap “Dallas” whose demise was just a bad dream of wife Pamela after actor Patrick Duffy announced he wanted to return to the show
.
And so it appears to be with two popular soaps, “One Life to Live” and “All My Children.” ABC pulled the plug on OLTL last year and AMC in 2011, after each program had run more than 40 years on network daytime television.

Now the shows are back, resurrected on the Internet as the debut offerings of the Online Network. ..

New 30-minute shows of each program will premiere Monday through Thursday, with a recap offered Friday that features interviews and behind-the-scenes footage. You can watch for free at Hulu.com on your computer or, if you subscribe to Hulu Plus, on other devices, or buy the shows from iTunes for download.

What time are the shows on? Anytime. That’s the beauty of online television. Touted as “anytime” soaps instead of daytime soaps, the shows offer a flexibility for viewers who no longer have the freedom to sit down each day at a regular time for “my story.”

...

 “As few as five years ago, this move of an established TV series to online exhibition would have sounded like folly,” Jim McKairnes, a former CBS executive and now TV consultant, college professor and author told me. ”But in today’s quickly changing world of pipelines and platforms and new-business-models, of ‘House of Cards’ and ‘Hemlock Grove’ and ‘Arrested Development’ on Netflix, of content rather than programming, it seems merely to represent the next phase of storytelling,” McKairnes said.

CIB's Recent $2 Million Gift to the Colts Owner is Cited as Reason Legislature Voted to Sunset CIB Taxes

In the story that I've followed on this blog, the Indiana General Assembly voted to sunset the CIB tax increases passed earlier this year by the Indianapolis City-County Council.

To refresh the readers' memory, the Council voted earlier this year to raise the admissions tax on tickets at CIB venues by 67% and the local car rental tax by 50%. The first year, this additional revenue is to go to public safety. After the first year, 75% of the money goes to the CIB's coffers.

Sen. Michael Young (R. Indianapolis)

Members of the General Assembly had complained that when they gave the CIB the authority to raise these taxes in the 2009 bailout legislation they passed, the taxes were only to be increased if necessary to pay back a state loan.  Fast forwarding to 2013, while the CIB didn't need the money to repay the loan, the CIB wanted the taxes maxed out anyway.  Members of the Council dutifully complied voting in a pre-arranged vote where exactly 8 Democrats and 8 Republicans voted for each of the taxes.

In response to the Council's action taken on behalf of the CIB, Sen. Michael Young (R-Indianapolis) authored legislation to sunset the taxes at 10 years, the length of time the CIB had to repay the state loan.  While the measure easily passed the Senate, it wasn't heard in the Senate.  It was, however, added in as part of the budget which passed Friday night.

Jon Murray of the Indianapolis Star reports on what transpired:

State lawmakers have revived a bid to put limits on recent Marion County admissions and auto rental tax increases that were enacted locally to support the Capital Improvement Board.

That’s the city agency that runs its sports venues and convention center, and the leader of the legislature’s crackdown says the CIB’s decision this month to pay for a $2 million luxury suite expansion at Lucas Oil Stadium only strengthened his case.

In the closing hours of the General Assembly session that ended early Saturday morning, language putting 10-year sunsets on the twin tax hikes was inserted into the two-year state budget bill by a conference committee. The tax increases are expected to raise $6.7 million a year initially, with most of it going to the CIB after the first year.

...

Young said his goal was to get the tax limits approved by session’s end because he wasn’t convinced the recent increases — allowed by a 2009 state bailout package for the then-ailing CIB — were necessary for the CIB’s long-term survival.

Only providing more evidence that the CIB is flush with cash, he said, was news of the CIB’s agreement to add two luxury suites and two kitchens to the stadium, at the request of the Indianapolis Colts.

He also cited longstanding discussions about a potential CIB contribution to help pay for a multimillion-dollar renovation of the Natatorium at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis; a bipartisan budget deal between Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard and City-County Council leaders in January that called for the city budget to receive a portion of the new tax proceeds; and council Democrats’ failed bid last fall to extract a $15 million one-time tax from the CIB, eying its high reserve fund.
“I think it made the case that they didn’t need these tax increases,” Young said of the CIB. “They had the cash. ... The rest of the state didn’t want to pay for helping the CIB out any more than they had to.

The lengthy article then goes on to detail members of the administration complaining about the immediate the impact the sunsetting of the taxes would have on the CIB, including the ability to borrow money on that tax revenue..  It's so hard to feel sorry for the leadership of an entity that is constantly lying to the public in order to get its hands on more of our tax dollars.  While the sunsetting of the tax increases is unfortunately 10 years down the road, hopefully it is a first step in the General Assembly taking much-needed action to reign in the CIB.

Why Vetoing SB 621 is Good for Marion County Republicans and Good for Governor Pence

This week Senate Bill 621 will land on the desk of Governor Mike Pence.  He will be faced with the decision to sign it, veto it, or let it pass into law without his signature.  While Indiana's Governor has a very weak veto - it takes only a simple majority in both houses to override a gubernatorial veto in Indiana - it is still a veto.   Given the large number of Republican defections (14) on the SB 621 vote in the House, it is doubtful that that the majority that passed the bill would stick together to override the Governor's veto.

Governor Mike Pence

Governor Pence should strongly consider that veto.  Here's why.

The most objectionable part of Senate Bill 621 is that it strips the Indianapolis City-County Council of virtually all authority when it comes to budgetary matters.  Although the Council still passes the budget, the Mayor, acting through his Controller, can change the budget at a whim, increasing or lowering various appropriations.  It is extraordinary sweeping power not given to any other mayor in the State of Indiana.

Why does this hurt the Marion County Republicans?  The Republican baseline numbers have been declining consistently every election for about the last 20 years.  During the last election, the GOP baseline in Marion County was down to 38%.  The days of Republicans' winning countywide races - like Mayor - is virtually gone if not already gone.  It is most likely that the Mayor sworn in in 2016 will be a Democrat even if Ballard were to run for re-election and ran a good race. 

So if the Republicans don't have the Mayor's Office in the future, where might their power lie?  The answer is the Indianapolis City-County Council, the very body being stripped of power.   According to the maps that GOP operative David Brooks drew, 15 of the 25 council districts have Republican majority baselines according to the 2010 election.  While I was not able to duplicate that analysis due to reprecincting after 2010, I doubt the accuracy of Brooks' numbers.  When I ran the 2012 baseline numbers in those districts I found only 8 are Republican majority seats and the vote spread in many of those districts had declined 10 to 20 points off the 2010 numbers Brooks was claiming.  Of course, 2010 was an unusually good Republican year and 2012 had substantiallly higher turnout due to it being a presidential election year.  Neither Brooks' numbers or my analysis necessarily reflects what would happen in a low turnout municipal election, which is usually better for Republicans.  Most certainly the GOP council numbers after the 2015 elections will number between Brooks' 8 and and my 17 of the total 25 districts up for election.


Indianapolis Councilor Christine Scales

Nonetheless, Republicans will have clout on the Council either with a majority or a significant minority.  But the problem is that SB 621 strips the Council of its budgetary power.  Republicans on the council will be powerless to stop an Indianapolis Democratic Mayor come 2016.

The obvious question is why a Republican Mayor would support such a measure which hurts his party long-term?  Reaching an accurate answer to that question requires an understanding of local Marion County GOP politics. While most of the grassroots workers in the local GOP are motivated by fiscal or social conservatism, the leadership of the party has for years been dominated by people who simply do not care about conservative principles.  Instead they are active in the party because it is a way to get their hands on the taxpayers' money, particularly through government contracts and corporate welfare.  The best way to get those government contracts and corporate welfare is to control the Mayor's Office.

The profiteers aren't dumb. They know the Ballard era is coming to an end.  They want him to have as much power as possible for the next 2 1/2 years so that they can make more money.   Short-term SB 621 increases the power of a Mayor Greg Ballard, while long-term Ballard's political party suffers from the Council being stripped of power.

Only one Republican councilor - Christine Scales - had the courage to step up and publicly criticize SB 621. But there were, in fact, several Republican councilors who opposed it but were intimidated from publicly speaking out about it..  Further, fourteen House members voted against SB 621.   I have never seen so many Republicans voting against as a partisan GOP bill.   That's undoubtedly because many of them knew the bill actually hurt the Republicans long-term.

Finally, I would be remiss by not considering the political consequences to Governor Pence for vetoing SB 621.  If he vetoes SB 621, he will make some insiders in the Indianapolis GOP, the aforementioned profiteers, unhappy.  While they are in leadership of the local GOP, they are only a small part of the Marion County Republican Party.  More importantly those insiders have no ability to deliver votes in Marion County to statewide candidate as evidenced the extremely poor job they did delivering votes for Pence in 2012.  Governor Pence would be better off thinking long-term and doing what is in the best interest of the Ballard-less future of the Marion County GOP.  That means vetoing SB 621.

There is an additional benefit of vetoing SB 621 to Governor Pence.  He will make a statement that he will do what is right, regardless of party.  If he vetoes SB 621, his leadership will be praised in newspapers throughout Indiana, including the Indianapolis Star.  It will help start him on a path of developing a reputation as a fair, thoughtful leader who also happens to be a conservative. Vetoing SB 621 certainly doesn't violate Pence's conservative principles.  If anything, the bill is anti-conservative as it seeks to strip a legislative body of power in favor of the executive.

Yes, a veto of SB 621 would be a solid win for the Governor.