Are House Democrats Giving Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard a Path to Re-Election?

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard

I have long said, Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard has no path to victory, no issues that would allow him to overcome the Democratic base in the county and his own steadfast pursuit of unpopular policies.  The decision by the Ballard campaign to try to run on "job promises" during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, a time when Indy has in fact lost jobs under Ballard's watch, shows how clueless the Ballard people are about how issues work to motivate voters. Same thing with the crime issue.  The Ballard campaign thinks voters will cast a ballot for the Mayor because he brought down violent crime.  The trouble with that issue is that people think crime has actually gotten worse, a perception confirmed by almost daily stories of violence in Indianapolis.

You don't have to have much campaign experience to know that jobs and crime are actually issues Melina Kennedy (assuming she wins the nomination) will use against Ballard.  This is the only time I can think of where a candidate (Ballard) has selected as his primary campaign issues, issues that actually work for his opponent.

Indianapolis Mayoral Candidate
Melina Kennedy

The negative issues against Ballard are virtually limitless: the 100 plus tax and fee increases, the $33.5 million he supported giving the Pacers, the ACS sweetheart 50 year parking meter deal as well as other insider deals, the numerous junkets.  Then you have the anger of fiscal conservative, tea party types who supported Ballard in 2007 and can't wait to go vote against him.

Yep, no path to victory.  But a path is beginning to open up...

The Democrats are on the verge of handing Ballard a major campaign issue.  If the House Democrats walkout ended within a few days, after getting the Right to Work bill pulled, the Democrats would have succeeded in motivating their base without doing long term damage to themselves with ordinary voters.

It doesn't matter the reason, any legislative walkout will be highly unpopular with average voters.  But walkouts are also usually quickly forgotten by the general public...that is unless the walkout continues on for a lengthy period of time.  Then it becomes ingrained in the public's mind as the way the minority party conducts business. Instead of becoming a quickly forgotten issue, it transforms into a "voting issue," an issue that affects the way one votes.

By continuing with the walkout into the second week, the House Democrats are on the verge of handing Ballard a pro-Republican, anti-Democratic voting issue.  If the Ballard campaign people are smart, and there is not much evidence of that thus far, they will have Ballard publicly bashing the walkout while making make Melina Kennedy take a position on it.  Kennedy will be boxed in...she almost has to support her fellow Democrats by supporting the walkout, a highly unpopular position with voters that could be turning into a voting issue in 2011.

Should the walkout continue, the Ballard people would be smart to jettison the jobs and crime issues, which are clear losers for Ballard, and make the walkout the No. 1, 2 and 3 issues.  So far though I haven't even seen Ballard comment publicly on the walkout.  It is a golden opportunity for Ballard to, after three years of pushing highly unpopular policies, to take a popular position for a change.

We will see if the Ballard's campaign realizes there is a ball sitting on the tee.

Guns at Games: CIB and Colts Probably Right About Gun Bill

Chris Worden on the Capitol Watch Blog has an interesting post about the Senate Bill 292, a meausre which would prohibit political subdivisions (such as cities, counties, towns, etc.) from passing local ordinances to regulate gun possession.  The CIB and the Indianapolis Colts are screaming that the bill would apply to let patrons pack heat to Colts games..  The Indianapolis Star reports that at a 10 Points Coalition Meeting to address gun violence, former Indianapolis councilor Bill Dowden , who heads a pro-gun rights group, said the the Colts and the Pacers could still restrict gun possession through the use of language on tickets admitting patrons to the games at Lucas Oil Stadium and Conseco Fieldhouse.  (For some reason, the link to the article, which appeared in today's paper, cannot be found on-line anymore.)



Lucas Oil Stadium



Typically I'm strongly in favor of anything that will tick off the CIB and the owners of the Colts and Pacers, all of which have no problem screwing over Indianapolis taxpayers.  Certainly I am in favor of a state law that prohibits political subdivisions from overriding this state's gun laws.   For example, if the legislature allows guns in state parks, that same rule should apply to city parks.  To do otherwise is merely to disarm the law abiding citizen while leaving law-breakers armed.

Let me just also say that I'm not surprised to read in the article that Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard came down against gun possession.  Ballard has shown time and time again his hostility to the Second Amendment and gun rights. I fully expect he will try to further restrict gun rights this year in response to gun violence and pressure from his liberal, anti-gun rights Public Safety Director Frank Straub.

But I digress.. This article is about the law.  Bill Dowden, who is not an attorney, has a legal position that is based on the ticket, as a contract, overriding the law.  Contrary to what he apparently believes, states certainly can pass laws that override private contracts.  Remember a year or so ago when the legislature passed a law giving gunowners the right to keep a gun locked in their car when on an employer's property?  That law overrides employee rules and a gun prohibition that might be in an employer-employee contracts.  Unlike the national government, state governments have sweeping authority to regulate private business relationships and give people additional rights not mandated by any constitution.

Whether or not SB 292 would be interpreted to allow contractual exceptions is open to debate.  However, as Worden notes, the bill already contains explicit exceptions:

"(1) employers can restrict gun possession for their employees acting within the scope of their duties; (2) courtrooms can be gun free; (3) public hospitals can be gun-free, as long as they have secure correctional health units staffed 24-hours a day by law enforcement; and (4) a subdivision can ban the “intentional display of a firearm at a public meeting.”

The fact that the authors of the bill have included a list of exceptions, and tickets to sporting events with gun prohibitions included is not one of those exceptions, would lead one to believe that if this case were litigated, a court would not carve out the exception Dowden suggests.

I am not really afraid of licensed gun owners acting irresponsibly and turning a professional sporting event into a gun fight.  But the legal effect of the law at least should be represented accurately.  If they are saying SB 292 would not override a contractual relationship created by a patron buying a ticket to a sporting event, well that is probably not correct.

Democratic Walkout Continues; Is Permanent Backlash Setting In?

Early on during the Indiana House Democrats' walkout, I pointed out that it would energize the Democratic base.  As far as the general public goes, the walkout was irritating, but it would have been quickly forgotten. 

Indiana House Chambers



Then the Democrats overreached.  Instead of confining the walkout to the right to work issue, they chose to expand the reason for the walkout to an assortment of issues, including education reform issues that Republicans had successfully campaigned on.  Then they decided to stay out even after Republicans took the right-to-work bill off the table.

The Democrats would have been smart to return to the Statehouse the minute Republicans took the right to work bill off the table. The public would have quickly forgotten the brief walkout while the base of the party would have been energized going into the 2011 and 2012 elections.

As the walkout continues into a second week, the politics of the maneuver is beginning to change.  The quickly forgotten, albeit unpopular political stunt is being set into the public's consciousness as being part and parcel of the Democrats' way of doing business.   

The Democrats have time to get back to the Statehouse before permanent political damage sets in.  But the time is running short.

Warning to Fellow Attorneys About Unprofessional Tactic Used by City Legal Attorneys

I wanted to warn my fellow attorneys of an unprofessional tactic used by several attorneys at Indianapolis Corporation Counsel, i.e. City Legal.

When the deadline comes to file an answer to a complaint, a City Legal attorney will contact the Plaintiffs attorney to ask for more time to file an "answer" or a "responsive pleading."  As a professional courtesy, we attorneys almost always agree additional times when an attorney makes a request.

But what City Legal is doing is taking advantage of this professional courtesy to buy time to prepare a Motion to Dismiss, which is not a responsive pleading under the trial rules.  Usually the Motion to Dismiss will be filled with bogus arguments where the city's attorneys proceed to argue point by point the merits of the facts alleged, citing summary judgment cases in support of the City's motion to dismiss, all the while ignoring notice pleading rules.

This is the kind of unethical trick that gives attorneys a bad name. One would think Samantha Karn, the head of Office of Corporation Counsel, would put a stop to this unprofessional practice.  But thus far, it hasn't happened.   So I wanted to let my attorneys know, do not agree toenlargement requests to answer a complaint that are made by Corporation Counsel attorneys.

Requiring Alcohol Prohibition As a Condition of Probation in Marion County

I don't often go to criminal court, but I was there this morning.  I saw an issue raised today that I haven't blogged about recently  So I thought I would revisit it.

Quite often in Marion County, the probation department will make as a standard condition that defendants agree to not consume alcohol during their probation.  Very often though the crime will have absolutely nothing to do with alcohol consumption. A defendant today had a drink on Valentine's Day with his fiance and was shortly thereafter hit with a test showing he was positive for alcohol consumption.  Even though his offense had nothing whatsoever to do with alcohol consumption, the probation department argued for a probation violation and that the defendant spend some time in jail for breaking their rules by having a drink.

If you wonder why our jails are too full, it is because of policies like the standard non-consumption of alcohol policy used by the probation department.   In addition to being bad policy that leads to jail overcrowding, the policy is also illegal.  Indiana law, specifically IC 35-38-2-2.3(a)(14), requires that any additional probation requirement beyond those listed in the code (such as a prohibition on alcohol consumption) be "reasonably related to the person's rehabilitation."  If the person's offense isn't related to alcohol, and there is no showing that the person has an alcohol problem, how is an alcohol prohibition "reasonably related to the person's rehabilitation?"

It's a shame that so many of those who work in the criminal justice system don't bother to read the laws they enforce.

See also:  Probation Revocation For Drinking a Beer, May 29, 2009

Attorney General Greg Zoeller Fires DAG Claiming Need for State Officials To Have "Higher Standards"; Meanwhile Zoeller Targets Whistleblowers Who Point Out Unethical and Illegal Conduct By State Officials

Yesterday, Deputy Attorney General Jeff Cox was fired for "tweeting" about using "live ammunition" on union protesters in Wisconsin.  I have been around Jeff a few times and I know he has a tendency to say provocative things to spur a response.  I know not to take the comments seriously as they're intended as satire, a fact he confirmed in a press release about his firing published today.  But in today's world where spoken satire because written through such devices as Twitter, satire can be misrepresented and used against the author.



Attorney General Greg Zoeller

The irony is that Attorney General Greg Zoeller is trying to take the moral high road by the firing. Given the record of Zoeller and former Attorney General Steve Carter when it comes to public ethics, they do not deserve kudos for for the firing.  Let's examine a few snippets of that record.



A few years ago, my client, then a deputy prosecutor in Lake County, attempted to report ghost employment in the office. The child support division where she worked employed a child support case worker, the nephew of a local judge.  My client noticed that he would come in for just a few hours in the afternoon and make calls in Spanish.  He had no client files in his office or a computer to use for cases like the other case workers. When my client asked him about what child support investigations he had been assigned, he responded that he had no cases and that his job was as a "vote gettter" in the Latino community for Lake County Prosecutor Bernard Carter..  My client looked up records which showed the employee was receiving full-time pay for no work, i.e. ghost employment.  When she persisted in pointing out the ghost employment to supervisors at the prosecutor's office, she was terminated.  I filed a free speech/wrongful termination lawsuit on her behalf in the Federal District Court in Hammond.

Did Attorney General Steve Carter's investigate the documented case ghost employment in the Lake County Prosecutor's Office?  Absolutely not.  Instead the AG's office immediately went after my client big time, assigning several deputies and paralegals to the case, dumping loads of paper on us in an obvious attempt to intimidate us.  The Atttorney General's Office devoted such resources to the case you would have thought that Steve Carter himself had been accused of ghost employment.

Former Attorney General Steve Carter

My client had taken a digital recorder with her to record the meeting at which she was terminated.  That is perfectly legal in Indiana as long as one person to the conversation knows of the recording.  The meeting lasted about 1 1/2 hours.  During discovery the Attorney  General's Office asked for the recording.  When my computer expert friends couldn't figure out how to make a copy of the digital recording, I finally had no choice but to provide the digital recorder to Patricia Orloff Erdmann of the Attorney General's Office.  I left instructions that she was make a copy (if she could) and/or a transcript and return it to me when finished.

A couple months later I took a job at the Department of Insurance and had to withdraw from the case.  My client, who of course is an attorney herself, began representing herself.  She asked for the recorder back.  Erdmann sent her an email saying that she couldn't return the recorder because they had no idea how the recorder got to the AG's office and they were investigating.. (Of course that wasn't true.)  When Erdmann still refused to return the recorder, my now former client went to the court and got an order for its return. 

Erdmann responded to the order by filing a notice with the federal court that the digital recorder couldn't be returned because it had been subpoened for a federal grand jury investigation of my client for wire tap fraud.  The AG's office had responded to the court order by going out and getting a subpoena, which was requested by Chuck Todd, one of the very top supervisors in the Attorney General's Office, someone who had no previous involvement with the case. It was apparent later the reason for the subpoena - to get it out of the AG's hands.

Erdmann had lied to the federal court.  According to my client, when she contacted the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District, officials there were confused about why they had been sent the digital recorder when there in fact was no wiretap grand jury investigation going on.  Later she said she talked to an FBI agent who was confused as to what he was supposed to be listening for as he couldn't find any recording of the meeting on the digital recorder. (I had confirmed the recording was on the digital recorder when I left it at the AG's office.)  When the digital recorder was was finally mailed back, my client found that the  recording of the 1 1/2 hour meeting had been erased, even though the recordings of what immediately proceeded and followed the meeting were still on the recorder.  It appeared as if someone intentionally erased the recording of the meeting, and given the chain of custody, all signs pointed to the Attorney General's office as being involved in the destruction of evidence. 

Did the Attorney General do any investigation of Erdmann and the rest of the office?. Nope. In fact, Erdmann received a big promotion nearly doubling her pay during the time the case was pending.  Today Erdmann is one of the top supervisors in the Attorney General's Office.  Neither Carter or Zoeller has ever looked into Erdmann's misconduct or that of possibly others in his office, conduct that was not only unethical but could constitute a felony.

About the time Erdmann began beign accused of misconduct by my client, long-time veteran Deputy Attorney General David Arthur took over the case.  He went on the attack, making the preposterous claimin a court filing that my former client had erased the recording, therefore destroying evidence favorable for her case.  Arthur's allegation appeared to be nothing more than a strategy to deflect attention from misconduct by members of the Attorney General's Office.  In the eventual settlement agreement, the AG's office even attempted to get itself included so that my former client couldn't pursue the AG for destroying evidence.  The effort failed.

A few years later, I tried to report illegal activity the Department of Insurance, including the diversion of money from the title insurance dedicated fund and harassment of employees in the Consumer Protection Division.  I crafted a detailed memo outlining problems at the Department and the illegal activity and submitted to then Insurance Commissioner James Atterholt.  The response was immediate.  Atterholt told me to resign or be fired. 

Did the Attorney General's Office ever investigate my claims to see if they were true?  Absolutely not.  The AG's office didn't make the first call to check out the information I provided.  Of course that didn't stop the AG from sending me a form letter falsely claiming that my notice of tort claim had been "investigated" and found to be without merit.  (Funny thing, they never conducted me during that "ivnestigation" or looked at information I had backing up my claims.)   When I filed the whistleblowing lawsuit, the response of the Attorney General's was to go after me, the whistleblower, with both barrels blazing.

Then there was the cas of a former client of mine who tried to report a conflict of interest in the awarding of a casino contract in French Lick.  He had documented the conflict in extraordinary detail and tried to present it to the Attorney General's Office. The representative at the AG's office wasn't interested in even looking at the documentation he had and warned the whistleblower that no good deed goes unpunished. The AG's office simply wasn't interested in whether laws were broken in the awarding of the contract.

Last year we filed the qui tam whistleblowing lawsuit about the fact that prosecutors throughout the state who have for years been keeping millions of dollars that should have been turned over to the common school fund, a fact that Attorneys General Carter and Zoeller have known about for more than a decade.  What did Attorney General Greg Zoeller do?  Well he claimed publicly to have done an investigation into our allegations, which is surprising since he never bothered to contact our office or ask to look at the information we had gathered from public records requests.  Instead, Zoeller did what his office always does when there is a whistleblower - the AG goes after the whistleblower.  Zoeller asked for zero accountability from the prosecutors.  He does not even want to even know how much money they have walked off with over the years.

The fact is the Indiana Attorney General's Office, under both Steve Carter and Greg Zoeller, has a history of looking the other way when it comes to misconduct by public officials.  When whistleblowers dare to point out public misconduct, Zoeller and Carter have spare no effort in aggressively going after those whistleblowers.  So when Zoeller tries to claim the moral high ground for firing Jeff Cox, I have to wonder if is really about doing what is right or a selfish attempt by Zoeller to protect his own reputation.  I am going to guess the latter.

Former Deputy Attorney General Jeff Cox's Statement on His Firing

“Today I was fired from my position at the Office of the Indiana Attorney General for statements that I made on my personal Twitter account and blog Pro Cynic outside of work.

This past weekend I was contacted by a far leftist blogger from San Francisco who didn’t like a recent Twitter post I made which was clearly political satire. My post used a ridiculous tone and solution to the challenges associated with the Wisconsin statehouse protests. In no way was my post meant to be taken literally and I don’t think any reasonable person would conclude otherwise.

This post and many other outrageous comments made by me on either Twitter or my blog over the years have been a combination of serious political debate and over-the-top cynicism. This approach has successfully served to get people’s attention and draw them into a substantive debate on political issues of the day. I have never posted anything that related to my duties and responsibilities with the state. Nor have I ever used state resources or blogged during or at work.

The big question before us is whether or not public employees maintain their First Amendment rights once hired by the government. The Attorney General’s Office was well aware of my blog which started over seven years ago and at no time did they express any concern about its content.

Today that office stated that “We respect individuals' First Amendment right to express their personal views on private online forums, but as public servants we are held by the public to a higher standard, and we should strive for civility." Does this mean that a public employee has “first amendment rights” unless your government feels you are not “civil” enough or meeting an undefined “higher standard” even away from the workplace?

Yes, I made a lousy choice of words that too many people find “out-of-bounds” today. I regret that decision and will tone things down in the future. Yet, this entire situation has been blown out of proportion and has highlighted what I feel is a double standard regarding who can talk and who can’t.”

Maybe I Won't Tweet After All; Learning A Lesson About the New Media

The Indianapolis Star is reporting that Attorney Greg Zoeller has fired Deputy Attorney General Jeff Cox over a "tweet" of his suggesting that "live ammunition" be used on the Wisconsin labor union protesters. 

I'm going to write on this matter more soon, including addressing Attorney General Greg Zoeller's  extreme hypocrisy when it comes to sanctioning unethical behavior in his office. 

Let me just say I know Jeff Cox.  I had Jeff on the other side of an eminent domain case that is still pending.  He has been nothing but professional and courteous, a far cry from other Deputy Attorney Generals I've dealt with during the Carter/Zoeller regime.

I ran into Jeff at the Distillery a couple years back.  He defended Attorney General Steve Carter's do nothing approach to his job.  Jeff argued that the AG's powers were so limited that he couldn't do anything about the issues I raised.  I said that AG Carter was simply making excuses to avoid taking action where he was legally authorized to do so.

One thing I learned about Jeff Cox early on is that he likes to say provocative things, things he may not actually believe, in order to provoke a response. That's fine when you're having a conversation in a bar. It's hazardous though when the conversation is memorialized in a writing through a Twitter account that can be copied and used against you.

That is indeed what Twitter is about.  Twitter is about people having conversations, through the Internet, about things that are going on in the world.  People are "speaking out loud" in snippets about things that pop into their head.

When people speak face to face, in less guarded informal settings, they tend to say things they would never say in a more formal letter or even a blog post.  When Twitter intercedes, those informal conversations, those off the cuff thoughts, are made permanent.

I thought I could be a successful Twitterer or, as my enemies would say, "Twit."   I often have observations about daily life that my friends find to be funny and/or interesting.  Then again, given my sarcastic nature and dry wit, I also tend to say things that I never intend to be taken seriously, but rather to provoke a response  Falling into the wrong hands and taken out of context, those humorous, provocative tweets could easily be used against me.

Maybe tweeting isn't such a good idea fter all.

Will There Be A Democratic Backlash That Extends To Local Politics?

Over at Indy Democrat, blogger Jon Easter speculates that the issues raised by the Republicans that have the Democrats all riled up, could spill over into the 2011 Indianapolis municipal elections.

You betcha.

A physics principle is that for every action, you have an equal and opposite reaction.  It's the same thing in politics. Republicans win big in 2010 and push their agenda.  That riles up the Democrats' constituency and they make gains in 2011 and quite possibly 2012.

Opinion polls do not measure the intensity of one's views.   Even if a poll says an issue is 80% to 20%, it doesn't mean that the 80% side wins in the democratic process.   There is a term in political science called a "voting issue."  A voting issue is an issue that affects the way you vote.  In the aforementioned example, it may a voting issue to the 20% while not to the 80%.

What is a "voting issue" can also change with election cycles.  For example, for years abortion has been a voting issue for pro-life voters a lot more than it has been for pro-choice voters.  That's because the pro-choice side has gotten what they wanted and began voting on other issues. Once pro-lifers start winning battles in the legislature, you'll see more pro-choice voters make abortion a voting issue and that will filter down to political races and how elected officials react.  Action - Reaction.

Democratic voters will be highly motivated this election year.  They will be looking for races to express their anger and frustration.  The one here in the big city is the Indianapolis Mayor and Council races.  I'm predicting that Mayor Ballard loses by more than 10% and that Democrats win 19 of the 29 seats up for grabs.  (The D's now have 13.)  It's quite possible the Democratic tide will be worse than that. 

I remember a certain Democratic blogger roundly mocking me when I disputed his claim that the Democrats would make gains in the 2010 elections.  I pointed out that wasn't the history...that the out party almost always makes big gains in the mid-term election of a new president's first term.  I predicted the Republicans would make strong gains.  Haven't heard from that blogger in awhile...

Democrats Issue List of Demands for Their Return; Expect Compromise to Be Reached

Former Speaker now Minority
Leader Patrick Bauer (D- South Bend)

Gary Welsh over at Advance Indiana has an interesting post about the walkout.  Gary has worked in the Illinois legislature as I have worked in the Indiana legislature.  Both of us realize that denying the majority a quorum to conduct business is a common legislative tactic that both sides practice, albeit on a very limited basis.  The Advance Indiana piece starts out talking about how wrong the Republicans are in insisting the the right to work legislation, which few, if any, GOP candidates ran on, be part of the legislative agenda.

Then Gary Welsh's position on the walkout abruptly changes when he posts an update on the post reflecting the fact that the Democrats demands are more than the right to work agenda:

UPDATE: House Democratic Leader Pat Bauer released a statement tonight listing many more demands than just dropping the right to work legislation. They want Republicans to drop education reform measures, including school vouchers and charter school initiatives opposed by teachers unions. They are also fighting an unemployment insurance bill that attempts to put the state on a footing to begin paying back the more than $2 billion debt the state owes the federal government because the state's unemployment trust fund is bankrupt. There are multiple legislative demands being made by the House Democrats, including the state budget bill. This tactic by the House Democrats is complete bullshit. Hey, you lost the election. You don't get to decide the entire legislative agenda. Earlier, Gov. Daniels believed House Democrats only walked to block vote on the right to work bill, but it is now quite clear the House Democrats are determined to block every single major reform measure proposed this session, effectively nullifying the election of a House Republican majority. This is nothing short of taking hostages like terrorists and demanding ransom be paid before they are willing to conduct the public's business. I believe the House should simply convene and conduct business without the quorum and let the Democrats take their case to the courts. The Speaker should immediately order the suspension of all salary and benefits to Democratic members of the House and their staff until they return for business. Boot the entire Democratic staff from the building and lock the doors to their offices until the Democratic members return. Let's not negotiate with terrorists....

Gary's post then goes on to provide a list of bills that Minority Leader Pat Bauer said that the Democrats are demand be killed:

HB 1002 (Charter School Expansion)

HB 1003 School Vouchers. School Vouchers. Allows a family of four making [under] $80,000 a year to receive taxpayer dollars to send their children to a private school

HB 1479  (Private Takeover of Public Schools. Allows the state of Indiana to take over poorly performing schools and for these schools to be managed by for-profit companies. It removes local decision making in schools.

HB 1584 (Public School Waiver of State Laws. Allows school boards to seek waivers of almost any school law or regulation.)
HB 1468 ("Right to Work.")

HB 1216 (Public Works Projects and Common Construction Wage)

HB 1203 (Employee Representations. Ends employee rights to join a union by secret ballot and opens employees up to retaliation and firing by an employer who finds out they are trying to use their right to bargain. This is preempted by federal law. Will require the state to use taxpayer dollars to defend this legislation.)

HB 1450 (Unemployment Insurance)

HB 1585 ( "Right to Work" for Public Employees. Removes collective bargaining rights at the local level.)

HB 1538 (Minimum Wages)

HB 1001 (Budget Bill)

My guess is the demand as to the additional bills is just a negotiating tactic by the Democrats.  I expect they will all return to work when the right to work bill is pulled from consideration.  And it will be pulled...not because of anything Governor Daniels has said (the Indiana General Assembly has rarely listened to the Governor's Office, which is, institutionally, one of the weakest in the country), but because the Democrats have the power to completely shut down the legislature.  Republicans have other bills they want passed and they won't want those bills to be sacrificed because of the right to work legislation which isn't a priority for many GOP legislators. The Democrats on the other hand will drop their walkout demand on the other bills, including the education reform measures.

That's what will happen. Bet the farm.

Another Marion County Jail Death; Will New Sheriff John Layton Investigate Medical Care at Private Jail Facilities and Demand Accountability?

The Indianapolis Star reports on another death at a Marion County jail facility:

A pregnant Marion County jail inmate died from internal bleeding caused by an abnormal pregnancy, police said today.

Amber Redden, 27, collapsed in a bathroom at Liberty Hall, at 675 E. Washington St., at 10 p.m. Sunday.

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officials said Redden’s death was “natural” and caused by a ruptured ectopic pregnancy that led to hemorrhaging.

Sherriff John Layton

Regular followers of this blog know of my complaints about the failure of former Sheriff Frank Anderson to exercise any oversight over Jail #2 run by CCA or private medical care provided at other facilities.  Jail #1, which is run by Sheriff deputies, is, in fact, extremely well run and has few problems.  But every place you look in the county where correctional services have been privatized, you see problems.  While privatizing corrections is always questionable, the situation is made much worse when the person in charge of the contractors refuses to exercise any oversight.  Scores of people have died or been injured at Jail #2 and at other faciliies due to poor medical care.  Many of those incidents could have been avoided if Sheriff Anderson exercised any oversight or asked for accountability from the contractors.  Yet in eight years, Sheriff Anderson didn't investigate a single a death or injury at his jails.  If the medical providers were negligent or needed to change how they were providing services, Sheriff Anderson didn't want to know.

I once represented a former nurse who had been incarcerated at Liberty Hall, the facility where Redden died.  The client, who has since passed away, would break out in tears about what she witnessed.  She said that she ended up helping inmates with medical issues due to her training and the lack of medical personnel at the facility.  The client talked about the private company using guards to pass out medication, which according to the former nurse, is illegal.  She also talked about the 250 bed facility not being staffed with medical personnel at night and on weekends.  I do believe there is a legal and conractual requirement that medical staff be at thefacility 24/7.   When informed of these problems at privatized Liberty Hall, Sheriff Anderson did what he always did when confronted with problems with private jail contractors ... he ignored them. 

Given the timing of Redden's collapse, 10 pm. on a Sunday, I wonder if this is one of those times when medical personnel was at Liberty Hall.  One would think more immediate care could well have saved this young woman's life.   It is interesting that IMPD conducted the investigation of Liberty Hall which is actually the Sheriff's turf.

Fortunately, there is a new sheriff in town - John Layton.  Hopefully he will, unlike his predecessor, take his job to oversee the private correctional companies seriously and not be afraid to conduct investigations and demand that private companies follow the law and their contracts.

Democratic Legislators Flee to Illinois to Avoid Vote on Right to Work Bill

Indiana House of Representatives

The Indianapolis Star is reporting that Democratic House members have fled to Illinois to avoid voting on the right to work bill:

House Democrats are leaving the state rather than vote on anti-union legislation, The Indianapolis Star has learned.

A source said Democrats are headed to Illinois, though it was possible some also might go to Kentucky. They need to go to a state with a Democratic governor to avoid being taken into police custody and returned to Indiana.

The House came into session this morning, with only two of the 40 Democrats present. Those two were needed to make a motion, and a seconding motion, for any procedural steps Democrats would want to take to ensure Republicans don’t do anything official without quorum.

With only 58 legislators present, there was no quorum present to do business. The House needs 67 of its members to be present.

In Indiana, there is a legal requirement that an elected member of the General Assembly be present and vote.  In a few rare cases, the state police have been ordered to return legislators trying to avoid a controversial vote  From my time working in the legislature, I remember a Republican legislator who, instead of staying to vote on an anti-union bill which was unpopular in his district, decided to drive back to his Lake County home.  The Republicans needed his vote though and the state police was ordered to intercept the legislator and bring him back to the state house.

The deadline for House bills to pass out of that chamber is this week.  If the Democrats do not return, the House will not have the 2/3 quorum to conduct business and scores of House bills will die.

3 Left Turns Makes a Right Needs Debater for Ronald Reagan Program

Mark Small producer of 3 Left Turns Makes a Right is looking at doing a video debate on the Reagan presidency, hopefully to be recorded this weekend.  He has asked me to publish this announcement:

3leftturnsmakearight is a webcast show that seeks civil debate on various issues of current interest. This would have been the 100th birthday of former President Ronald Reagan. I believe it is timely to discuss the quality of his presidency. The topic for the show this week is Resolved: that Ronald Reagan was a really bad president. I am taking the affirmative. I am looking for someone who is interested in taking the negative on this resolution. You may respond to marksmall2001@yahoo.com

The New Parking Meters Are Coming; ACS 50 Year Deal Stands As Exhibit A On Out of Control Insider-Dealing Ballard Administration

The Indianapolis Star reports that the new parking meters that will soon be installed in Indianapolis pursuant to the 50 year contract entered into by the City with ACS. 

A case could certainly have been made for raising the parking rates.  The problem on that front though is the Mayor Greg Ballard's history of raising scores of taxes and fees (more than 100 by last count) despite the fact he ran as an anti-tax candidate in 2007.

When the history of the Ballard administration is written, the parking meter deal will be serve as Exhibit A of an administration consumed by selfish insider dealing.  ACS brought to the project a history of problems, including a botched welfare privatization deal right here in Indiana that is costing taxpayers millions.  But ACS employs as a lobbyist Joe Loftus, a Barnes & Thornburg partner who is also a paid adviser to the Mayort.   Council President Ryan Vaughn, who also works at Barnes and Thornburg was also listed as a lobbyist for ACS.  Vaughn refused to recuse himself despite the fact that his law firm's client would make reportedly more than a billion dollars on the deal, and actively participated in the debate even while presiding over the council.

Barnes and Thornburg Partner
Joe Loftus lobbies for ACS
and is adviser to the Mayor



Council President Ryan
Vaughn works for Barnes
and Thornburg whose
client is ACS

The City never came close to making a case for why the City itself couldn't buy the meters and keep the profits instead of funneling the money to the a politically-connected company.  While the City bragged about the 200 paying jobs ACS promised to bring to the city, the crafters of the deal were careful not to specify what the salaries would be for those jobs, that they would be full-time and didn't put the promise into the contract which made it completely unenforceable.  Finally, to placate critics, the City put an every decade cancellation provision in the contract, but made included restrictions that made the cancellation right virtually impossible to use.  City leaders thought enough councilors would be fooled to vote for the deal...and they were right.

As a result of the Ballard win in 2007, we Republicans had a wonderful opportunity to rebuild the Marion County GOP.  Instead the naive, politically-experienced mayor turned his administration over to political insiders, people like Bob Grand, Joe Loftus, and Paul Okeson, people more interested in enriching themselves and their friends than rebuilding the Marion County Republican Party.  Come 2012, we Marion County Republicans will have to start the process of rebuilding the local GOP organization.  Thanks to the Ballard administration's out-of-control insider dealing, it will be another 20 years before the Indianapolis voters trust Republicans enough to hand them the reigns of power again.

Ballard Campaign Claims Democrats "Mudslinging" By Looking at His Broken 2007 Campaign Promises

In today's Behind Closed Doors in the Indianapolis Star, Mayor Greg Ballard's campaign attacks the Democrats for "mudslinging" for setting up a blog "Ballard Broken Promises" and looking at the Mayor's 2007 campaign promises versus what he actually did.  Let's look at the first five installments of that series:

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard
distanced himself from supporters
and campaign promises immediately
after election.

CAMPAIGN PROMISE #1:  As Candidate Mayor Ballard Promised to be an anti "tax" Mayor.

FACT:  Ballard has implemented dozens and dozens of tax increases, including more than 100 business fee increases, a hotel tax increase, a car rental tax increase, a sporting event-admissions tax increase, an expansion of the professional sports district to collect more state sales and income taxes, a “hidden” sewer rate increase and parking rate increases, among others.

*********

CAMPAIGN PROMISE #2: Ballard promised to repeal the 2007 Local option income tax.

FACT: After over three years of demonstrating clear control over the City-County Council agenda and final votes, Mayor Ballard has relied on additional tax revenue to fund basic operations and has not repealed the 2007 income tax increase. It is for this increase that he so vehemently attacked former Mayor Bart Peterson and which, by many accounts, swept Mayor Peterson out of office.

*********

CAMPAIGN PROMISE #3:  Ballard promised to work to abolish property taxes and to spend 60% to 90% Million Local Option Income Tax on property tax relief.

FACT: Ballard has not made any push to eliminate property taxes from the Indiana Constitution, and Ballard and his City-County Council have not spent any new income tax revenue to independently lower property taxes in Marion County.

*********

CAMPAIGN PROMISE #4: Ballard promised to end "country club politics" just before taking over as Mayor.  November 7, 2007 Victory Speech.

FACT:  Ballard has accepted free memberships to two Indianapolis country clubs and provided a police car to a third country club owner who was a campaign contributor.

*********

CAMPAIGN PROMISE #5:  In 2007, Ballard promised to end the taxing authority of unelected boards.  2007 Ballard Campaign Website Issues/Local Government Reform.


FACT:   Mayor Ballard has not eliminated taxing authority of any unelected board and, in fact, Ballard proposes to transfer water and sewer utility districts to the unelected Board of Public Utilities (dba Citizens Energy Group) which has its own tax raising and rate raising authority.  And the Metropolitan Development Commission diverted $8 Million of property tax money to unelected CIB for the first time.

*********

The website contains citations to documentation about when the campaign promises were made and how the promises were broken.

It speaks volumes that the Ballard campaign does not even attempt to dispute that the Mayor has broken scores of campaign promises.    Rather the Ballard campaign says that by looking up Candidate Ballard's campaign promises and comparing them to the Mayor's actual record  is "mudslinging."  The Ballard campaign, the same campaign that incredibly spent over $1.3 million in three off-years (including over half a million dollars last year) while not running a single campaign commercial, continues to look extremely amateurish. 

What is most sad for Republicans is that he's given Democrats and Chairman Ed Treacy all the ammunition they need to take out not only Ballard, but Republican Councilors who have mindlessly rubber-stamped Ballard's unpopular agenda.  All the allegations lodged on the blog Ballard Broken Promises are, at least so far, 100% true.  People who walked with Ballard on the 2007 campaign trail heard those promises and enthusiastically supported the long-shot candidate.  Immediately after he was elected, Ballard threw those campaign supporters over the boat and reneged on one campaign promise after another.  Will someone please tell me why we Republicans should back a big spending, big taxing, insider-dealing Mayor for re-election, someone who  has completely betrayed conservative Republican principles and sold out the people who supported him in 2007?

Mayor Ballard Defends Mayor Peterson's 11th Hour Giveaway of Pan Am Plaza, Uses Taxpayer Dollars to Help Private Company Litigate Case Against Taxpayers

Indianapolis Pan Am Am Plaza (Sports Corporation Allowed
Property to Fall Into Disrepair During Peterson Adminstration)

Over at Washington Street Politics, the anonymous blogger criticized the taxpayer lawsuit we filed with regard to the Pan Am Plaza giveaway.  Actually it's a great reason Republicans should not vote to re-elect Mayor Ballard - when given the opportunity he supported Democratic shenanigans that cost taxpayers millions.

In 1985,, the City of Indianapolis entered into a contract in which they gave away a city block to the Sports Corporation to develop the property.  The only "cost" of the property was that the Sports Corporation build a public plaza, i.e. Pan Am Plaza and maintain that plaza for 30 years.    The Sports Corporation could quit the plaza requirement after 20 years if it paid the city $3 million adjusted for inflation, which would be $6 million in today's dollars.

It was a remarkably favorable deal for the Sports Corporation.  But not sweet enough. The Sports Corporation wanted to sell the property, but the plaza requirement made the property worth less.  When Mayor Peterson lost the election, the Sports Corporation, headed by former Democratic Councilor Susan Williams, saw an opportunity.  In late December 2007, while the Peterson administration was literally packing moving boxes to vacate the 25th Floor, a simple resolution was introduced before the Metropolitan Development Commission.  It simply said that the plaza would be reduced to 10,000 square feet and made permanent maintained by the Sports Corporation. There was no mention of the fact the plaza was being reduced by nearly 90%, no mention of the $6 million dollars owed to the public if the plaza requirement was ended earlier, no mention that it was changing a 22 year old deal.

The resolution was summarily passed in a stack of other resolutions.  The nondescript nature of the resolution and the fact nobody came to testify on it, left MDC members in the dark about what they were really approving.  Following the passage of the resolution, the City executed paperwork to change the plaza requirement, moving with alacrity before the Ballard people could take over.

The Sports Corporation though had no interest in maintaining any permanent tribute to the 1987 Pan Am games.   On April 1, 2008, Pan Am plaza was sold with Sports Corporation walking away with millions.  The City's taxpayers got nothing for that city block it gave to the Sports Corporation in 1985.

While going through some city real estate documents, I stumbled across these last minute Peterson administration shenanigans.  I alerted Marilyn Pfisterer of the Indianapolis City-County Council. She was initially very interested in exposing the Peterson misdeads and taking up the issue. She said she woudl talk to the Ballard administration about what I uncovered.  I never heard from her again.

When we filed the Pan Am taxpayer lawsuit, we still thought we were setting the ball on the tee for the Ballard administration. Surely the Ballard wouldn't defend the last minute maneuvering by the Peterson administration to screw over taxpayers in favor of a downtown company led by a former Democratic councilor.  Boy were we wrong. Ballard has zealously defended the sweetheart deal, and even has city lawyers helping the Sports Corporation go after taxpayers who filed the lawsuit.   The pro-taxpayer Ballard of the 2007 campaign was gone when we filed the lawsuit in 2008.  Mayor Ballard's administration had been captured by insiders, people like Bob Grand who sits on the Sports Corporation Board.

The the City and the Sports Corporation filed to dismiss the case. We won in the trial court but lost at the Indiana Court of Appeals.  It is currently on rehearing and if we lose that we certainly intend to appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court to consider the unique issues of law.

The Washington Street Politics blog suggests we are wasting taxpayer money by pursuing the lawsuit. Of course, we're actually trying to recover taxpayer money.  Mayor Ballard does not have to be using City Legal attorneys to work on the case for the benefit of a private company.    WSP makes a good case of wasted tax dollars for attorneys, but it's Mayor Ballard who is solely responsible for those wasted tax dollars.

But, then again, I'm pretty sure Washington Street Politics, the mouthpiece piece of the liberal, big spending, big taxing, taxpayer-unfriendly Ballard administration, isn't worried about the facts.

U.S. Congress and Indiana General Assembly Move to End Contracts With Planned Parenthood; PP Attempts to Mislead Public About Reason Behind Defunding

Both the U.S. Congress and Indiana legislature are considering measures to stop government from contracting with Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion in the country.

Those who attack the move often claim the effort, supported mostly by Republicans, is about denying non-abortion, family planning services to women. While the services contracted for at the national and state level do indeed deal with family planning, non-abortion services, the claim is more than a little disingenuous. The effort at ending government money going to Planned Parenthood is not aimed at stopping those services, but rather aimed at Planned Parenthood because of the abortion services PP provides and many, if not most, people find objectionable, especially when paid for with tax dollars.

Money is a fungible asset. The notion you can just isolate money to pay an organization for things you like, while not paying that organization for things you don't like, doesn't work. These government contracts make Planned Parenthood wealthy, freeing up PP's resources to spend on providing abortion services.

When someone suggested the possibility last year that Indiana contacts with Planned Parenthood, I frankly didn't believe it. I looked up on the state's contract database and was shocked to find conservative Indiana had millions of dollars of contracts with Planned Parenthood.

Those who claim that Mitch Daniels is the most pro-life governor for decades need to ask why the Governor has allowed his agencies to contract with Planned Parenthood. Gov. Daniels could with a simple order put a stop to the contracts. He has never taken that action.

Planned Parenthood may claim that it is the only one capable of providing these family planning services. That would be a more valid point and put PP on more solid footing than falsely claiming that the move is about government cutting off non-abortion, family planning services. But the claim by PP that it is the sole outfit capable of provide services sounds more like a business trying to undermine possible competition for government contracts. I frankly don't believe PP that no one else does what they do in the area of family planning. PP has proven it is a business and its chief concern is about making money, not ideological battles The moves in Congress and at the Indiana General Assembly threatened PP's business profits. That's what the fight is about...not eliminating family planning services.

See also: State of Indiana Contracts With Planned Parenthood (Friday, January 15, 2010)

List of Indianapolis Muncipal Candidates

Filing closed today. Candidates can still drop out on Tuesday.

Mayor
Sam Carson (D)
Ron Gison (D)
Melina Kennedy (D)
Bob Kern (D)

Greg Ballard (R)

1st Dist
Jose Evans (D)

Susan Blair (R)

2nd Dist
Angela Mansfield (D)
James Patterson (D)

Anthony Simons (R)

3rd Dist
Conrad Cortellini (D)
Len Farber (D)
Rick Rising-Moore(D)

Ryan Vaughn (R)

4th Dist
Kostas Poulakidas (D)

Christina Scales (R)

5th Dist
Ginny Cain (R)

6th Dist
Brett Voorhies (D)

Janice Shattuck McHenry (R)
Grant Price (R) (withdrew)

7th Dist
Maggie Lewis (D)

8th Dist
Monroe Gray (D)
Tyrone Chandler (D)

Stu Rhodes (R)

9th Dist
Joe Simpson (D)

Robert Collier (R)

10th Dist
William (Duke) Oliver (D)

11th Dist
Paul Bateman (D) (withdrew)
Isaac Pernell (D)
Steve Tally (D)

12th Dist
Regina Marsh (D)

Deven Cannon (R)
Mike McQuillen (R)

13th Dist
Robert Lutz (R)

14th Dist
Marilyn Pfisterer (R)

15th Dist
David King Baird (D)
Patrice Duckett (D)
Vop Osili (D)

16th Dist
Brian Mahern (D)
Eugene Francis Wallace (D)

17th Dist
Mary Moriarity-Adams (D)

Gary Whitmore (R)

18th Dist
Vernon Brown (D)

19th Dist
Dane Mahern (D)

Jeff Miller (R)

20th Dist
Will Jackson (D)

Susie Day (R)

21st Dist
Ben Hunter (R)

22nd Dist
Doug White (D)

Jason Holliday (R)

23rd Dist
Jeff Cardwell (R)

24th Dist
Kent John (R)
Jack Sandlin (R)

25th Dist
Aaron Freeman (R)

At-Large
Zach Adamson (D)
Patricia (Pat) Andrews (D)
John Barth (D)
Sherron Franklin (D)
Leroy Robinson (D)
Joanne Sanders (D)

Jocelyn-Tandy Adande (R)
Jackie Cissell (R)
Michael Kalscheur (R)
Barb Malone (R)
Angel Rivera (R)

Did Sen. Richard Lugar Commit A Felony By Voting From Precinct Where He Doesn't Live?

Over at Advance Indiana, Gary Welsh of Advance Indiana discusses a story from Real Clear Politics which reports that when Sen. Richard Lugar returns to the Hoosier state he lives in a hotel, a fact confirmed by Lugar senior adviser Mark Helmke:

Indiana Republican Sen. Richard Lugar has been preparing for an intra-party challenge since he was first elected, but recently, questions have popped up about his residency and commitment to Indiana.

Asked if Lugar lived in a hotel when he returned to Indiana, Lugar senior adviser Mark Helmke said, "That's correct."

Lugar owns a farm in the Hoosier State that he's been tending for decades. His siblings own parts of the farm, but he still works on it once a month with his son, even though he doesn't live there.

As for the living conditions on the farm, Helmke joked, "The place is pretty rustic."

Asked how Lugar's team would respond if challenged about his residency, Helmke shot back, "We'll be happy to talk about the farm."

"It's not an issue. They can try to make it an issue. We'll be happy to talk about the farm and what it means to him," Helmke said.

..

Richard Lugar and his wife live full-time in a house in Alexandria, Virgina, a suburb of Washington D.C. The focus is on whether by living in a hotel when he comes back to Indiana, Sen. Richard Lugar would still qualify as a resident of Indiana. As the challenge to then Secretary of State candidate Evan Bayh shows, when you or your family is in the business of national politics, courts will afford you a lot of leeway in terms of maintaining residency in the state you came from.

Peole though are missing a much bigger issue, i.e. the Charlie White problem. Remember White was determined to be eligible to run for Secretary of State because he was a resident of Indiana. The problem though was that he voted in a precinct in which he was not a resident, which is a felony under Indiana law, IC 3-14-2-11 in particular:

Except as provided by IC 3-10-10, IC 3-10-11, or IC 3-10-12, a person who knowingly votes or offers to vote in a precinct except the one in which the person is registered and resides commits a Class D felony.

Lugar can claim to be a resident of Indiana by staying in a hotel in Indiana when he returns to the state. That would make him eligible to serve as a U.S. Senator from Indiana. The problem though is when he votes as all elected officials do without fail. If Lugar is voting in Indiana using his farm as his address, when it is undisputed that he is not living there, he has committed a Class D felony under IC 3-14-2-11.

Indianapolis Mayoral and Council Candidate List With One Day to Go (includes correction)

Filing closes tomorrow.

Correction: I inadvertently listed Isaac Pernell (D)as an at-large candidate. He is a candidate in District 11.

Mayor
Sam Carson (D)
Ron Gison (D)
Melina Kennedy (D)
Bob Kern (D)

Greg Ballard (R)

1st Dist
Susan Blair (R)

2nd Dist
Angela Mansfield (D)
James Patterson (D)

Anthony Simons (R)

3rd Dist
Conrad Cortellini (D)
Len Farber (D)
Rick Rising-Moore(D)

Ryan Vaughn (R)

4th Dist
Kostas Poulakidas (D)

Christina Scales (R)

5th Dist
Ginny Cain (R)

6th Dist
Brett Voorhies (D)

Janice Shattuck McHenry (R)
Grant Price (R)

7th Dist
Maggie Lewis (D)

8th Dist
Monroe Gray (D)
Tyrone Chandler (D)

Stu Rhodes (R)

9th Dist
Joe Simpson (D)

Robert Collier (R)

10th Dist
William (Duke) Oliver (D)

11th Dist
Paul Bateman (D)
Isaac Pernell (D)
Steve Tally (D)

12th Dist
Regina Marsh (D)

Deven Cannon (R)
Mike McQuillen (R)

13th Dist
Robert Lutz (R)

14th Dist
Marilyn Pfisterer (R)

15th Dist
David King Baird (D)
Patrice Duckett (D)
Vop Osili (D)

16th Dist
Brian Mahern (D)
Eugene Francis Wallace (D)

17th Dist
Mary Moriarity-Adams (D)

Gary Whitmore (R)

18th Dist
Vernon Brown (D)

19th Dist
Dane Mahern (D)

Jeff Miller (R)

20th Dist
Susie Day (R)

21st Dist
Ben Hunter (R)

22nd Dist
Doug White (D)

Jason Holliday (R)

23rd Dist
Jeff Cardwell (R)

24th Dist
Kent John (R)
Jack Sandlin (R)

25th Dist
Aaron Freeman (R)

At-Large
Patricia (Pat) Andrews (D)
John Barth (D)
Sherron Franklin (D)
Leroy Robinson (D)
Joanne Sanders (D)

Jackie Cissell (R)
Michael Kalscheur (R)
Barb Malone (R)
Angel Rivera (R)

Current Indianapolis Mayor and Council Lineup for Primary

Filing closes Friday. Here's the current lineup according to who has filed as of the end of the day on Wednesday:

Mayor
Sam Carson (D)
Ron Gison (D)
Melina Kennedy (D)

Greg Ballard (R)

1st Dist
No one has filed yet.

2nd Dist
Angela Mansfield (D)

Anthony Simons (R)

3rd Dist
Conrad Cortellini (D)
Len Farber (D)
Rick Rising-Moore(D)

Ryan Vaughn (R)

4th Dist
Kostas Poulakidas (D)

Christina Scales (R)

5th Dist
Ginny Cain (R)

6th Dist
Janice Shattuck McHenry (R)
Grant Price (R)

7th Dist
Maggie Lewis (D)

8th Dist
Monroe Gray (D)
Tyrone Chandler (D)

Stu Rhodes (R)

9th Dist
Joe Simpson (D)

10th Dist
William (Duke) Oliver (D)

11th Dist
Paul Bateman (D)
Steve Tally (D)

12th Dist
Regina Marsh (D)

Deven Cannon (R)
Mike McQuillen (R)

13th Dist
Robert Lutz (R)

14th Dist
Marilyn Pfisterer (R)

15th Dist
David King Baird (D)
Patrice Duckett (D)
Vop Osili (D)

16th Dist
Brian Mahern (D)
Eugene Francis Wallace (D)

17th Dist
Mary Moriarity-Adams (D)

Gary Whitmore (R)

18th Dist
Vernon Brown (D)

19th Dist
Dane Mahern (D)

Jeff Miller (R)

20th Dist
Susie Day (R)

21st Dist
Ben Hunter (R)

22nd Dist
Doug White (D)

Jason Holliday (R)

23rd Dist
Jeff Cardwell (R)

24th Dist
Jack Sandlin (R)

25th Dist
Aaron Freeman (R)

At-Large
Patricia (Pat) Andrews (D)
John Barth (D)
Sherron Franklin (D)
Leroy Robinson (D)

Jackie Cissell (R)
Michael Kalscheur (R)
Barb Malone (R)
Angel Rivera (R)

I will update as the Clerk's Office makes more names available.

3 Left Turns Make A Right; New Blog Offers Streaming Video Political Debate

Please check out my friend attorney Mark Small's blog 3 Left Turns Make a Right. Mark is trying to raise the intellectual quality of the political debate on local, state and national issues. The slogan on his site is "Where the far left and far right overlap for fun and enlightenment."

Mark's blog includes a weekly streaming video political debate. I'm featured on the first one, debating with Mark the issue of whether there is a difference between the political parties. (Mark said "No" while I argued the contrary position.) Former Libertarian Congressional candidate Sean Shepherd debated Mark on the 10th Amendment, the most recent video on the site. Both videos can be found by following the links.

Here is a link to Mark's website. It can also be found in the right margin of this blog under the list of Blogs I Regularly Follow. I invite you to check it out.

North of South Project Advances to Full Council; Members of Redevelopment Commission Put City's Taxpayers on the Hook for Nearly $100 Million

Today I sat down and watched on streaming video the Economic Development Committee as it considered the North of South project.

The No-So is a proposed project near the Lilly downtown campus which Buckingham Companies would develop. When every lender backed out of funding Buckingham's project of a mix of retail, hotel rooms and apartments because the project was too risky, Buckingham hired then Republican County Chairman Tom John and Republican activist Lesa Detrick to lobby Mayor Greg Ballard's office to have the City's taxpayers back the proposal. That lobbying effort resulted in a proposed deal that was considered tonight, a commitment from Indy's taxpayers of nearly $100 million dollars while the private companies that benefit, such as Lillys, only have to invest a few million.

The measure passed out of committee 6-1. What I found most interesting was when Councilor Joanne Sanders (who isn't a member of the committee but came to speak) and a member of the public decried the low paying, minimum wage nature of the service industry jobs that would be created. Republican councilors Mike McQuillen and Aaron Freeman responded that any job is better than no job.

As a conservative Republican I would wholeheartedly agree with McQuillen and Freemen IF the private sector was creating the jobs. Once we taxpayers are asked to put nearly $100 million on the line, we have a right to demand better than minimum wage jobs in return for our investment.

Fiscal conservatives would find the comments tonight by Republican Councilors Mike McQuillen, Aaron Freeman and Jeff Cardwell to be nothing short of repugnant. The three praised the idea of taxpayers being the financial guarantor for a private sector development that was too risky for any private lender to undertake. Fortunately McQuillen will be gone after this term. I can't say the same for big spending liberals Freeman and Cardwell who are in safe seats.

With the exception of Doris Minton-McNeil, the Democrats who were on the committee barely spoke during the debate. She was the only Democrat who voted against No-So. Perhaps Councilors Paul Bateman and Jose Evan were persuaded by the fact that 15% of the jobs would go to MBEs. Or perhaps they were persuaded by the phone calls that former mayor and current Lilly executive Bart Peterson has apparently been making to reluctant Democrats. Regardless, it was not a bright shining moment for the Democratic caucus either.

While I respect Joanne Sanders, I don't think it's a stretch to call her one of the most liberal members of the Council. It speaks volumes about what is wrong with the Mayor's Office and the Republican-controlled council that it was Sanders lecturing Republicans on the committee about fiscal responsibility and the need to stand up for taxpayers.

African-Americans Gain Population in New Census; How Will Future Voting Patterns Be Impacted?

WTLC Radio Host and Census Director Amos Brown has released an interesting report on the gains in the African-American population in Indianapolis and Indiana:

African-Americans fueled Indiana and Indianapolis’ growth during the first decade of the 21st Century and experienced major changes for the city and metro’s oldest and largest minority community, according to an analysis of 2010 Census data by WTLC-AM Radio in Indianapolis. The first of a series of analyses on the 2010 Census and African-Americans in Indianapolis to be released this year.

Indiana’s African-American population climbed to a record 654,415; a gain of 20.7% or 112,369. Fully 27.9% of Indiana’s total population growth of 403,317 during the decade came from African-Americans.

In Indianapolis/Marion County, another record was set as the Black population rose to 256,418; a gain of 19.1% or 41,164. A gain that alone would’ve been responsible for all the city/county’s population growth.

Total Indianapolis population climbed 5.0% to a record 903,393.

Fueled by a 19,283 gain in Blacks living in the suburban counties surrounding Indianapolis, African-American population in the ten country Indianapolis metro area climbed to a breathtaking 283,549; a 27.1% gain.

According to WTLC-AM’s Amos Brown, long time chronicler of the demographics of the area’s African-American community, and Co-Chair of Indianapolis’ 2010 Census Complete Count Committee, Black population growth in Indianapolis’ metro grew faster than Black growth statewide.

Said Brown, “Indianapolis/Marion County’s Black population gain was paced by increases, some huge, in every township but Center”.

Center Township’s Black population fell 20.0%, or 13,909 to 55,692; the lowest since 1950. Warren Township had the highest Black decade growth at 13,478, followed by Pike (12,346), Lawrence (10,418) and Wayne (10,293).

In Indianapolis/Marion County, African-Americans now comprise 28.4% of the population; Hispanics 9.3%. Non-Hispanic whites comprise just 59.5% of the city/county; down from 68.9% in 2000.

According to the Census, the city/county’s non-Hispanic white population declined by 54,636; or 9.2%. Falling in every township except the three southern ones.

Pike Township now has the highest percentage of African-Americans at 46.8%, followed by Center (39.0%), Lawrence (37.2%), Warren (35.0%) and Washington (28.6%) and Wayne (27.3%).

According to Brown’s analysis, the city/county’s three southern townships had the highest Black growth in percentage terms; Franklin (up 758.9%), Decatur (up 465.5%) and Perry (up 192.1%). Forty years ago there were virtually no African-Americans living in the three southern townships of Decatur, Perry and Franklin. Today 4% of our community, some 10,360 do.

Forty years ago, Indianapolis’ Black population was solidly concentrated in Center Township. No more, as only 21.7% of the city’s Blacks live in Center Township. Twice as many African-Americans live north of 38th Street. Some 17.2% of Blacks in the city/county live in Lawrence Township, 14.7% in Washington, 14.6% in Wayne, 14.2% in Pike, 13.6% in Warren.

Brown says that Blacks are literally spread all over Marion County and also spread into suburban townships hugging Marion County’s northern, western, southern and eastern borders.

Huge gains were recorded by African-Americans in the suburban counties.

Hamilton County has the largest Black population in the suburbs at 11,401; followed by Hendricks County at 8,091; then Johnson County at 2,365 and Hancock County at 1,758.

There were also large increases in Black population in suburban towns and cities. Fishers has the largest Black population at 4,958; followed by Carmel at 2,767 and Noblesville 2,300.

The 2010 Census is the first to report population data by school district boundaries. The WTLC analysis of African-American population finds the largest Black suburban population is the Hamilton Southeastern school district (5,893), followed by Avon (3,527), Carmel-Clay (2,921) and Brownsburg (2,773).

Total population and Black population within the Indianapolis Public School (IPS) boundaries fell, according to the 2010 Census. Black population dropped 11.9% or 16,640 to 122,629 the lowest since 1960. Total population within IPS dropped 9.8% or 32,232 to 296,715, the lowest since 1910.

A majority of the Indianapolis African-American population (52.8%) now lives outside the IPS area; an historic first!

The 2010 Census reports just 47.8% of our Black community lives in the IPS area. Within IPS, (the old pre-Uni-Gov area) total population fell to the lowest level since 1910, to 296,715; down 9.8%.

Meanwhile, both the population and the percentage of African-Americans living within township school districts have jumped.

Blacks comprise just 41.3% of IPS. But the percentage is higher in Pike at 46.3%. Blacks are 32.1% of the Warren district; 27.7% of Washington’s district; 27.0% of Lawrence and 21.3% in Wayne.

I was most interested in the Pike Township results. Pike is my home township and according to a story in the Indianapolis Star a year or so ago it is the third wealthiest township in Marion County. Pike is home to a large number of middle class and upper middle class African-Americans. The census shows that Pike now has the largest African-American population percentage wise of any township, coming in at 46.8%. According to information supplied by Amos Brown, the non-Hispanic white population in Pike is down to 36.8% with Hispanic making up most of the balance. (This gets a little confusing as the Hispanic designation is actually an ethnicity and not a racial classification.)

Pike Township is also an example of how difficult these racial/ethnic classifications may be in the future. I read awhile back (I can't remember where) that Pike is home to more mixed marriages than any place else in the country. It will be interesting to see how the offspring of those relationship get classified in the future.

The Census figures reveal other interesting results. The lilly white townships of Perry, Franklin and Decatur are finally becoming integrated. Center Township though appears to losing its once dominant black population, most likely in favor of young, upwardly mobile whites. Assuming that voting trends continue to follow racial/ethnic patterns, one has to wonder if in 20 or 30 years we'll be looking at Republicans regularly elected out of Center Township.

The suburban figures show that the integration of the suburban Marion County Townships has now spread out to the doughnut counties. Could it be that the end of the Republican domination of Hamilton County is only a few decades away?

Why Fiscal Conservatives Have No Friend in Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard

Over at Indianapolis Times, Democratic partisan Terry Burns details how Mayor Greg Ballard went from an anti-tax candidate to a Mayor whose appetite for more taxes/fees and more spending seems to have no limits:

As a candidate for mayor, Greg Ballard campaigned on an anti-tax platform. As mayor, it seems there isn't a tax that Ballard hasn't raised (or tried to raise).

FACT: Ballard has implemented dozens and dozens of tax increases, including more than 100 business fee increases, a hotel tax increase, a car rental tax increase, a sporting event-admissions tax increase, an expansion of the professional sports district to collect more state sales and income taxes, a “hidden” sewer rate increase and parking rate increases, among others.

Specifically, Mayor Ballard has:

● Increased hotel tax in 2009 (making it the one of the highest in the country) as part of the CIB Bailout he promoted. Indianapolis Star, August 11, 2009

● Added J.W. Marriot to the Professional Sports Development District as part of CIB Bailout he promoted.

● Transferred property tax revenues to the CIB for the first time ever, further shifting the financial burden to residential taxpayers.

● Promoted a $430 million “hidden tax increase” for infrastructure projects through unnecessary increase in sewer rates. Indianapolis Star, April 29, 2010

● Pushed through a plan that will cause parking meter rates to double in two years and extend meter operation hours. Indianapolis Star online, October 20, 2010

● Increased over 100 licensing, permitting and other business fees on 27 types of businesses. Indianapolis Star December 23, 2009; Indianapolis Star, May 6, 2010

● $93 Million of property tax revenue as primary source for funding of private North of South real estate project near Lilly’s campus. City/County Council Proposal 292, 2010; Indianapolis Star, September 28, 2010 and October 10, 2010.

Burns is actually being too kind. Let's go over some of the taxing or spending schemes that was left off the list.

• Ballard supported raising the alcohol tax.
• Ballard supported raising the food and beverage tax.
• Ballard supported extending the county wheel tax.
• Ballard supported a local sales tax to pay for a regional transportation plan.
• Ballard supported the CIB giving the Pacers $33.5 million, which turned out to come indirectly from property taxes.

Mayor Ballard's betrayal of fiscal conservativism has been astonishing. While some might say a Mayor Melina Kennedy would be worse for fiscal conservatives, I would ask, how could that even be possible? Ballard may be the most liberal, big spending, big taxing mayor in Indianapolis history.