Republican Filibusters Lobbying Reform

Ok, more national stuff but this is a story everyone needs to hear. Both chambers of Congress overwhelmingly passed a lobbying reform bill - 396-22 in the House and 96-2 in the Senate. Afterwards both versions were to go to a conference committee where the differences would be hashed out. However, Republican Senator Jim Demint essentially filibustered the legislation by refusing to allow the conference committee to form. Yes you read that correctly - they are filibustering putting the final touches on legislation they voted for 96-2! This is the modern Republican party folks - they filibuster lobbying reform of all things after they vote for it.

Now the Democrats are having to get around the conference committee by changing both bills to have the EXACT same language and this bill would have to pass the House (which it did today) and the Senate again. So in the coming days when you hear Republicans whine about how the Democrats are being unfair with the Congressional rules, you'll know the real truth. What I'm interested in seeing is if the Republican Party as a whole will have the audacity to openly filibuster the new legislation after passing it 96-2 the first go around...

News Sentinel Joins Iraq Spin Brigade

I typically focus on local issues here but today's editorial from the News Sentinel was so off-base and ridiculous I felt like I had to respond. Now frequent readers know that I often criticize the JG editorial page and they may wonder why I don't give the same oversight to the NS. The truth is brother Craig at Reverent and Free usually handled that task so I didn't have to worry about it, but now that he's on sabbatical it looks like somebody has to pick up the slack.

The NS joined the rightwing Iraq Spin Brigade today when they penned an editorial about Iraq and how the surge might be working. In this editorial they cite two authors from the Brookings Institute - Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack - who recently wrote a column for The New York Times discussing this very topic. Of course the right wing media will want you to believe, as the NS writes, that O'Hanlon and Pollack have long been critics of the Iraq war and their opinion is somehow more relevant because - well, because they're not Republicans I suppose.

What you need to know, and what the NS should have known, is that these two "experts" have been supporters of this war and its strategy from day one. They have consistently been wrong every single step of the way and only after it was obvious to everyone that the war was going south did they even feign the weakest of criticisms towards the Bush administration. And let us not forget that they were also two of the principal champions of the surge in the first place.

So here we have two pundits that have been consistently wrong and have a professional vested interest in supporting the surge (if they haven't lost all their credibility already) being propped up by the NS as wise and without a conflict of interest. Nothing could be further from the truth.

At some point if you're going to consider yourself a journalist (I'm assuming those at the NS do) then you might want to actually read the news and understand the nuances of a story before publishing it. I was going to blog a list of O'Hanlon and Pollack's greatest hits but Glenn Greenwald has the goods if you're interested in knowing how wrong these two have been since day 1. Oh I can't resist so here's a couple from 2003-2004:

There is obviously violence. There was violence in some of the regions that we visited on the days we were there. But you're talking about specific, isolated acts just like you would get in an American city. I'm not trying to say that this is a country at peace, but overall, we really do run most of the country together with our Iraqi partners and the resistance forces are very small pockets who operate only at a given moment here or there.

Coalition and Iraqi security forces will ultimately defeat the rejectionist remnants of the Ba'ath Party, as well as foreign terrorists who have entered the country. These dead-enders are few in number and have little ability to inspire a broader following among the Iraqi people.

Brilliant!

Abolition of Property Taxes and Reality

The outrage over property tax increases is justified and understandable. However, some special interest groups are trying to use this opportunity to push their agenda and Don Villwock, president of the Indiana Farm Bureau, is a prime example of this. In his latest column he argues that the property tax must be abolished:

What should we avoid? Another quick fix that quiets those taxpayers who complain the loudest or represent the most votes but leaves the state’s antiquated property tax system intact. Short-term solutions such as the elimination of the inventory tax simply redirect the burden of property taxes for political purposes. They exacerbate rather than address the larger problems that are inherent in our property tax system.

The solution is obvious: Call your elected officials and tell them it is time for Indiana to get rid of property taxes.

It's quite rich to hear Villwock say we should avoid a quick fix when he's advocating that we abolish the tax altogether. And then he has the gall to rail against "those taxpayers who complain the loudest" - what exactly does he consider his organization? Of course Villwock only leaves the reader with generalities when confronted with the idea of what might actually replace the property tax revenue stream:

What should replace property taxes? A tax that is based on economic activity, such as an income tax or a sales tax, would, by its very nature, reflect the taxpayer’s ability to pay.

Ok, let's be honest about what would happen to the income tax. The Allen County property tax collections for 2007 will be approximately $451 Million. A 1% increase in the county income tax would generate roughly $71 Million in revenue. So we would have to raise the county income tax by 6.3% to make up the difference. Does Villwock know that this would put the break even salary point at around $24,000? In other words anyone making over that amount would likely pay an increase in overall taxes.

And how exactly does a sales tax represent one's ability to pay? That statement alone shows Villwock has a fundamental misunderstanding of taxes in general as a sales tax is about the most regressive tax imaginable.

So who would be affected the most? The middle class of course. Do we really want to continue to break the backs of working class people so the wealthiest among us don't have to pay their fair share? Make no mistake - something needs to be done. But while Villwock and others' ideas may sound populist they are no friend to the working people of this state and thus should not be taken seriously...

City Council Lockout Precedent Is in My Favor

Marcia Oddi at the Indiana Law Blog has listed several prior opinions related to citizen lockouts. One that particularly caught my eye was issued by the former Public Access Counselor Karen Davis regarding a school board meeting in Perry Township:

If the Board did not hold its meeting in a room adequate to accommodate a substantial number of persons as has been the Board’s recent experience, this could constitute a violation of the Open Door Law’s requirement that the public be permitted to observe and record the meeting. On February 12 there were a substantial number of persons who had to observe the meeting from another room. It is not clear from the facts whether the video equipment allowed for all to observe, and whether the audio was clear enough for those present to hear the Board and to record the meeting. In addition, I note that providing video or audio of the meeting is but a substitute for actual attendance in the same room as the Board. Providing audio or video has been approved in circumstances where the Board had posted a notice for a particular room but had to accommodate a larger crowd than it could have anticipated.

Here we have the public access counselor saying that it could be a violation of the Open Door Law if the board didn't hold the meeting in a room that would accommodate the crowd that is typically present at such meetings. That is CLEARLY the case in my complaint as the overflow room has been used in the past but wasn't in this case when the final Harrison Square vote (among other hot topics) was going to take place. It simply cannot be argued with any legitimacy that the board could not have anticipated the crowd size at the July 24th city council meeting.

The PAC also says that while audio and video were present in this board's overflow room, that can still only be considered a substitute for actual access. Readers should note that in MY complaint the citizens weren't even provided video and audio - we were locked out entirely.

And finally the PAC ends her statement with a passage that could be applied VERBATIM to my complaint:

Here, the Board was aware that the interest in the meetings ran high, and decided to revert to the Board room with full knowledge that the attendance would likely greatly exceed the size of the Board room. Even if the Board did not violate the letter of the Open Door Law, I find that the Board’s action to move the meeting to its regular Board room did not conform to the spirit of the Open Door Law

I would challenge anyone to try and argue that the statement above could not be directly applied to the July 24th city council meeting...

(H/T: Mitch Harper)

Backhanded Slap at Matt Kelty in Pape's Fundraiser Invitation

The text might be difficult to read but notice the giving levels listed:

$50, $125, $250, $150,000 (let's just be up front about it)

Zing...

WOWO Report on City Council Lockout

Joy Thomas' 4pm report on WOWO stated that Sandy Kennedy said people were free to enter the council chambers at any time. That statement, if she did make it, would be a flat out LIE - there is no other word to describe it. I cannot imagine that she would attempt to put forth such an argument when there were an abundance of witnesses and public officials that were locked out. Here's a brief list:

Kevin Knuth
Mitch Harper
Liz Brown
Rick Stevenson
Cindy Henry


I'm sure there are many more (Mark Garvin comes to mind) that would attest to the lockout. I don't want to go as far as saying Kennedy is being dishonest because I personally didn't hear her say that - I only heard the news report. I sincerely hope that this is not the city's official response...

Tom Henry on Property Taxes

The Henry campaign issued the following press release regarding property taxes. Henry's “Relief, Restructuring & Responsibility” plan is shown below:

Henry’s three-pronged “Relief, Restructuring & Responsibility” approach calls for the following components:

- A special session of the Indiana General Assembly requested by the governor to address the property tax issue without delay.

- A $288 million allocation from the budget surplus enacted by the General Assembly and applied to one year of residential property tax relief. That one year would give local units of government enough time to restructure their revenue streams to match their needs and circumstances. In 2005, state government diverted the Property Tax Replacement fund, the $288 million, from local government use to create a budget surplus. This was the first time in 20 years that this tactic has been used. The credit is a subsidy state government pays to localities to keep tax bills down.

- Reconsideration of the Hometown Matters legislation by the General Assembly. Without other items complicating the discussion, the General Assembly could focus solely on this crucial topic. The legislation was devised by the state’s municipal officials and was introduced during the last session.

Some of the key provisions of the Hometown Matters legislation are:

- Giving local governments the option to reduce property taxes through any combination of local sales tax, supplemental income tax, local innkeeper’s tax and local food and beverage tax.

- Allowing counties the ability to act first and make changes on a countywide basis. If the county did not act within a specified period of time, then the
other local units would be able to restructure for themselves.

- A commitment by Henry when Mayor to: 1) Cut costs, improve city services and make government more effective; 2) work collaboratively with other governmental entities to better achieve these goals; and 3) advocate aggressively on behalf of the city and all its citizens wherever decisions are made for the fair and equitable treatment of municipalities.

- Support for the bipartisan commission formed by the governor to examine and make recommendations on reforming and restructuring local government as a method to investigate the root causes of the state’s continuing property tax problems.

Journal Gazette Covers City Council Lockout

There were some people in the blogosphere upset by the fact that the lockout received no coverage from the mainstream media. Well Ben Lanka of the JG covered the story today and there was a quote from the Public Access Counselor that was somewhat disturbing:

She said the fact the meeting was televised on public access television and held in a normal meeting room leads her to believe the meeting was held legally.

“It sounds to me they didn’t violate the spirit of the law, but I don’t know what a court would say,” she said.

Readers need to understand that the city council hearings are broadcast on CABLE public access - not PBS. So not only must you own a television you must also be a cable subscriber. Does the PAC really believe that the law can be twisted to imply that citizens must be cable subscribers to take part in democracy? I know the PAC needs time to research the issue but that would set a terrible precedent for open government activists...

My Formal Complaint to the Public Access Counselor

Today I contacted the Indiana Public Access Counselor and filed a formal complaint against the city for its possible violation of the Indiana Open Door Law. I've had a couple of people ask me why I want to go through with this when everyone involved seems to admit that it was a simple oversight. Let me start by saying that I'm not suggesting anyone should resign or anything like that; I simply don't want this type of violation to go unchallenged. If nothing else it forces local government to think about the public and how they should be accommodated.

Most of the people I talk to see this as the #1 issue in the upcoming election - they simply don't believe (right or wrong) that local officials take their concerns seriously. Well this is one way to change things. The more citizens that become engaged in local politics the more seriously their issues and opinions will be taken. It might not seem so now, but the squeaky wheel does get the oil - or the boot I suppose.

I know there are others that see my complaint as a way to possibly void the bond financing vote that took place last night. I want to be clear - that was not my intention. But if other citizens want to use last night's lockout to further their own agenda - well that is their right I suppose. The text of my letter to the PAC is shown below:

Heather Willis Neal - Indiana Public Access Counselor,

On July 24th, 2007, the Fort Wayne City Council held their weekly public council meeting. There had been construction taking place in the usual council chambers so they moved to a much smaller meeting space. During previous meetings in this smaller room, the council has accommodated the overflow crowd by allowing them to watch the proceedings on television in an adjacent room.

Unfortunately, during the July 24th meeting, the adjacent room was being used for another meeting. Therefore, about 80-100 citizens were locked out - literally - of the city council meeting. Once the seats were filled, the doors were shut and there was no audio or video provided. The doors were also manned by the sergeant at arms and local police, and no one was allowed to go in without somebody coming out first. I personally asked the sergeant at arms who was responsible for the decision and the room scheduling and he informed me that it was the Fort Wayne City Clerk Sandy Kennedy.

I believe the city’s action clearly violated IC 5-14-1.5-3 (emphasis mine):
"Sec. 3. (a) Except as provided in section 6.1 of this chapter, all meetings of the governing bodies of public agencies must be open at all times for the purpose of permitting members of the public to observe and record them."

The meeting was not open for all of the public to observe and record as the doors were shut and citizens were not freely allowed to enter. While the meetings are broadcast on public access television there is no statute requiring citizens to own a television in order to observe and record these meetings.

This is my notice of formal complaint and I look forward to your response.

Thank You

Did the City Council Violate State Law?

The city council possibly violated state law when they locked out the citizens that wished to take part in tonight's meeting (see here and here for more info). Specifically the Indiana Open Door Law says (IC 5-14-1.5-3):

Sec. 3. (a) Except as provided in section 6.1 of this chapter, all meetings of the governing bodies of public agencies must be open at all times for the purpose of permitting members of the public to observe and record them.

In my opinion it is not enough to tell citizens that show up they must go home to watch it on television. However, I will be seeking the guidance of the Indiana Public Access Counselor on the issue. Note that if the PAC rules in my favor the Indiana Code also addresses what happens in the case of a violation (IC 5-14-1.5-7):

Sec. 7. (a) An action may be filed by any person in any court of competent jurisdiction to:
(1) obtain a declaratory judgment;
(2) enjoin continuing, threatened, or future violations of this chapter; or
(3) declare void any policy, decision, or final action

Now I want to make it perfectly clear that this is not my intent but item 3 would void any bond financing vote that took place on Harrison Square. The council and this administration must know that this violation of democracy will not be tolerated...

City Council Lockout Photo

Here's visual evidence showing the locked city council door being guarded by security and the police. The man discussing the issue with security is Wayne Township Trustee Rick Stevenson. Despite his efforts he couldn't get them to budge - shameful. By the way, although not evident in this photo there were approximately 80-100 citizens locked out of the meeting...

(Apologies for the grainy cell phone photo)

A Sad Day For Democracy - Tonight's City Council Meeting

There were numerous votes tonight that I'm sure people will rail against in one form or the other. But I want to focus on what was the most egregious display of anti-democratic policy I have ever seen from local government.

I showed up to the council meeting 10 minutes early only to find numerous people, including Kevin Knuth and Mitch Harper, waiting outside. This summer the council meetings have been moved to a much smaller room on the 2nd floor due to construction being done in the normal meeting space on the 1st floor. However, the council has always accommodated the overflow crowd by allowing them into the Omni room where they could watch the meeting on TV.

This was not the case tonight. The Allen County Homeowners Association had a meeting in the Omni room so those citizens that showed up for the council meeting were locked out - literally. The doors were shut, no video or audio available, and they had security and police watching the door. This is flat out unacceptable. I was told by security that the city clerk was responsible for the decision and as such Sandy Kennedy should be held responsible.

Is this how we want local government to operate in this city - behind locked doors guarded by security forces? Is that democracy? This overflow was certainly no surprise. Two weeks ago there were 50 people that overflowed into the Omni room and there were no substantive Harrison Square or property tax debates. Tonight we had anti-smoking ban discussion, Harrison Square votes and property tax discussion. Who in their right mind would actually think that room would accommodate everyone? They knew it wouldn't - they just don't give a damn. This administration has thumbed their nose at public oversight for the last year and tonight was the last straw.

Can the clerk not call up the public library and/or the Grand Wayne Center to reserve meeting space? This was an absolute failure of leadership and government. When the people are forcibly removed from the democratic process before a controversial meeting - well something has to change. Have the voters had enough?

I had a friend that showed up tonight for her first ever council meeting only to be greeted with this Stalin-esque display. But maybe that's the point - to discourage citizen participation. It wouldn't surprise me one bit but I will be contacting our new state Public Access Counselor and asking her for a ruling on the matter. I will personally sue the city if required. Those that read this blog know that one of my biggest issues is transparent government - we did not have that tonight and every single person involved should be ashamed...

Karen Goldner Releases Buy Fort Wayne Plan

Fort Wayne's 2nd District City Council Democratic nominee Karen Goldner released a plan today that would help ensure that our local tax dollars stay local. Readers of this blog will know that I'm a big proponent of this concept and I addressed the city council on this very topic during the Harrison Square public hearing. I am absolutely thrilled that Goldner takes this seriously and I would encourage everyone to put pressure on their candidate/councilman of choice to support Karen's plan:

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The plan includes the following components:

• A “Buy Fort Wayne” preference would be included in commodity purchases, ranging from 1-5% based on the size of the purchase.

• All professional services or “RFP” contracts handled by the Purchasing Department would be scored on a 100-point scale. Bidders would be given points for their experience and quality and their price. In addition, bidders would be given points for whether they were a business located in Fort Wayne, Allen County, or the region. Bidders from outside of the region could earn points by subcontracting a significant amount of their work to a local company.

• The Purchasing Department would be required to maintain a registry of companies which express interest in selling to the City. This registry would be consulted as bids or Requests for Proposals (RFP’s) are issued by the Department.

• For large contracts of $100,000 or more, the Purchasing Department would hold a pre-bid conference where prospective bidders could meet prospective sub-contractors and the details of the project would be explained.

“Fort Wayne spends millions of dollars every year in buying the goods and services it needs to operate and serve our citizens,” said Goldner. “I believe that the City’s dollars are best spent in supporting local businesses whenever possible. That recycles more of our tax dollars into jobs and income for workers and businesses in our city and our region, which is good for everyone.”

This is the best idea I've seen from any candidate to date. Kudos to Karen Goldner...

Defining Success for Harrison Square

I don't think it's a big secret that I'm against this project. But I would honestly like to know what the benchmarks are for success? Of course nobody wants to talk about that, but why is that exactly? I think the reason is because they simply don't know. Just like our current President talks about "Victory in Iraq", the HS supporters talk about "The Future of Our City". Both are ambiguous terms at best.

And just like the Bush administration in Iraq, our city leaders have no long term plan - how could they when there is no definition of victory success? Where's the plan that shows how we're going to leverage high quality jobs from HS? Where's the benchmarks detailing how much new investment we hope to gain from HS? Give me something, anything by which I can judge this project 5-10 years down the road.

When that isn't readily available it's a red flag that this project hasn't been fully thought through. What happens if the occupancy numbers don't match the city's ridiculous projections? Sure, they'll just take from the other half of the Jefferson Pointe TIF but that money is being counted on somewhere else - so what happens?

I'll tell you what happens. The city does exactly what they're telling the bond issuers they will do - raise your property taxes.

THAT is not a plan anyone should support...

At Least We're Not Lipscomb

It seems like Lipscomb, Alabama is the Jerry Springer Show of local politics. It allows us all to say, that no matter how much people (such as myself) complain about the decisions of our local politicians, at least we're not like Lipscomb:

Simon Speights is the mayor of Lipscomb, Alabama. He got the job back in 2005 when his predecessor resigned and the City Council voted him in. But Speights isn’t exactly eligible to be mayor.

Speights pleaded guilty to burglary in 1994, and while his voting rights have since been restored, his right to run for political office has not. Records show Speights occasionally uses the surname Speight, which might account for no one realizing the mayor’s criminal record. Oh, and he’s driving a stolen car (no one knows how he got it). And he’s collecting more than twice his authorized salary (no one knows how that happened). Last week, the local district attorney demanded that a judge remove the mayor from office.

But wait, it gets worse:

But who would replace him? The mayor pro tempore is Gaston Randle, a city councilman and the former police commissioner. Randle might not be the man people want in charge; last month he resigned his commissioner job after being indicted for stalking a local Hispanic woman. And more recently, Randle has been charged with extortion, bribing and impersonating an officer.

But wait, it gets worse (I'm not kidding):

Next in line for mayor would be City Councilman David Horn. But Horn was charged two weeks ago with impersonating a police officer. Apparently Horn was annoyed with a citizen who challenged him on fire safety statutes and so threatened to arrest him. He then pulled out an honorary police commission card and claimed to be a sheriff.

Horn posted bail for the incident, but then the police realized he was wanted in connection to an outstanding charge of domestic violence. He was promptly rearrested.

Alas, it gets worse:

What is it with this perfect storm of small-town corruption? Well, the county sheriff first began an investigation of the Lipscomb police (the second in three years) after receiving allegations that officers were harassing Hispanic citizens. The sheriff found that the cops were shaking down pretty much everyone, regardless of ethnicity. And in the process, he found much to investigate at the city council.

I'm not sure if there's an actual ranking but I'm quite certain that Lipscomb would have to be rated one of the worst cities in America...

My Encounter with Mark Souder at the Kelty Press Conference

I went to the Matt Kelty press conference today where Mark Souder publicly offered his endorsement of Matt Kelty. Of course readers might remember that Souder endorsed Nelson Peters in the primary, but I don't think it's a surprise that Souder would coalesce behind the Republican nominee. However, there were several prominent members of the Republican Party still noticeably absent. Those present were Liz Brown, Mitch Harper, Paul Moss and Steve Shine.

Matt's speech was about property taxes and his "Cut it, Cap it, Make it Permanent" platform. There are parts of this idea that I really like and parts that I think are unrealistic but I'll save that argument for another day. I wanted to point out that while I was the only Democrat present I was treated very well by several local Republicans including Dan Turkette, Steve Shine, Mitch Harper, Mark Garvin and even Matt Kelty.

After the press conference was over I was able to ask Congressman Souder a couple of questions about his fence-sitting position on Iraq and I thought I'd share his answers with everyone:

Pruitt: Congressman, our troops were sent to Iraq for this surge under the explanation that they were going to provide security for a political reconciliation, and I know you’ve come out recently and said that you’ve been on the fence about a lot of these recent resolutions. But I guess I’m wondering now that it’s almost certain that the Iraqi Parliament is going to take the month of August off, how can anyone support this strategy anymore and has that caused you to waver at all knowing that the political reconciliation just simply cannot take place?

Souder: My position in voting to go to war, my position in staying there, and my position in a drawdown – not an abandonment – there’s a mis-statement that my concern was over the date of withdrawal. My debate has been over the size of troops that would remain – I don’t believe we should be the occupying power. I had given up on the Iraqi Parliament a long time ago; I would like them to work together, it would be nice , it would be wonderful for democracy. We have to look out for our long term interests in the Middle East. That includes Iran, that includes Israel, that includes not having radical Islamic groups take over Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Yemen – if the radical groups take over there we’re going to have to put five or six hundred thousand troops in the region. So what’s going on in the Iraqi Parliament, I’d given up on them some time ago.

Pruitt: It seems like the differences between your position and the Democratic Party’s position on strategic redeployment or withdrawal or whatever you want to call it are not that far apart. So since you’re on the fence do have any plans to put forth your own bipartisan legislation to try and wrap this up?

Souder: I’ve stated my, because people have asked me “well what are your views”, and I’ve said them over and over, I don’t know whether it’d be thirty or forty thousand troops – that would be really up to the generals. I just believe more bases out in the open spaces where you can see who’s coming at you and then you take the battle to the enemy. I’ve talked to numerous members about offering something like that but have not done so for the following reasons. The moderate Democrats who I’ve talked to including their leadership would support that position and probably as much as half to two-thirds of the Republicans would. The problem is that as long as the President takes one position and the Democrat leadership takes another there’s no room for anybody to break nor is it clear they would even allow that to be offered.

So I’ve stated my position but there’s no real point in putting forth legislation. I believe after the September report, which now looks like Patreus may ask for November, that that position in fact will be the Republican position. My criticism of President Bush has been, if you would’ve taken this position nine to twelve months ago I believe we might’ve been able to get a compromise. Now both sides are so dug in that I don’t know that a compromise is possible. I’ll look at Lugar’s compromise, my guess is that he has a little more faith in the Iraq study group than I do, but I’ve articulated what that is but there isn’t really any point to legislation that five or ten people might sign on but the leadership in either party won’t allow to be offered.

Draw your own conclusion...

A Candid Interview with Charles Langley

UPDATE: The original link to the interview was a Word doc and it should've been a PDF - that's been corrected. Also, I do not post the entire interview on the blog because on Blogger the whole post would show up in the window and it would just be too long. Sorry about the screw up...

Charles Langley was the Democratic Party nominee for the 4th District city council race. He recently decided to drop out of the race and I thought I would sit down with him and try to figure out why he made that decision. Charles is a good guy and he was in a tough race - I was disappointed in his decision but I respect it because everyone has priorities in life and Charles did what was best for him. I certainly don't hold any ill will towards the guy and I hope others feel the same way.

As usual I've provided a few choice quotes below but I think everyone will enjoy reading the entire interview which you can download here:

Pruitt: But how did you get into the local Democratic Party and how’d you get hooked up with Dr Tom?

Langley: We show up at Democratic Party headquarters and we’re expecting like this big thing where there’s five people per district going to duke it out over the district, who’s gonna represent who, should that person even run in the primary. And we get there and there’s seven guys in khaki shorts, some in tank tops, looking in a phonebook for people in certain districts. And here I am, I’ve got a speech in my hand prepared to tell all these people why I should run in the 4th district and they said ‘Well yea, you can run’. And Brent and I look at each other like “There’s something not right about this”.

Langley: If anything I can say that some of the most respectable people that I would admire, in the past couple months have not been so much the Democrats as much as the Republicans.

Langley: But then came the day when I actually met Mitch Harper. And he’s the nicest guy I have met in this entire process. He’s a tremendous guy, very intelligent, very cordial; I think a lot of Mitch Harper, I really do.

Pruitt: You said there were a lot of things you like about Kelty – have you made up your mind about who you’re going to vote for in the mayoral race?

Langley: To be honest with you I’m leaning in one direction but I’d really like to hear Tom Henry’s issues before I make a final decision. Because I’ve met Tom Henry, I think he’s a very respectable man, very intelligent, very amicable but I do want to make a few issues before I make a complete decision. So maybe I haven’t made up my mind.

I was somewhat surprised that a Democratic nominee for city council wouldn't come right out and say unequivocally that he's voting for Tom Henry. But I suppose that's why I like doing these interviews...

JG Editorial Board Supports Proposed Shooting Range

I am pleasantly surprised at this morning's JG editorial supporting Sheriff Ken Fries' plan to build a shooting range:

His idea is untested, but if donations and grants build the entire training center and Fries is able to bring in enough revenue to cover operating costs, county officials have little reason not to give it a try.

Even if fundraising falls short and the driving course idea fails, the county would have a needed shooting range, plus land it should be able to resell without loss or make available to new employers.

Fries’ idea is worth pursuing. And regardless of the sheriff’s training center, the Plan Commission, and later the City Council, should vote to rezone the property.

I have previously written in support (here and here) of this plan and I think Sheriff Fries should be commended for trying to build a much-needed rifle range without raising our taxes. It's not every day I agree with the JG editorial page but it's been happening a little more frequently of late - their wildly off-the-mark Valerie Plame editorial not withstanding (sorry, couldn't resist)...

Kalb Strikes Again - Harrison Square to be Competitively Bid?

Mike Sylvester has a copy of the letter that John B Kalb has sent to the Redevelopment Commission requesting that they not approve the recent Harrison Square agreements due to the fact that they may be in violation of state law if they do so:

Commissioners:
I am writing to ask that you NOT approve the subject resolutions, which pertain to the baseball stadium license and management agreements, because I think that Indiana state law mandates that you may not enter into an agreement for the management of a public facility without first making a public request for proposals. In particular, I direct your attention to IC 5-23-2-2(which defines “board” and which definition I think encompasses your Commission), IC 5-23-2-7(which defines “operating agreement” and which definition I think encompasses the proposed Hardball/ stadium agreements), IC 5-23-4-1(which grants the Commission the authority to enter into an operating agreement for the management, maintenance, etc. of the stadium) and IC 5-23-5-1(which requires that the proposed agreements be preceded by and pursuant to a public request for proposals).

What's interesting here is that the management of the stadium will likely be up for competitive bid. However, the operations are all under Hardball Capital's domain and were certainly not going to be competitively bid. In the unlikely event that the Redevelopment Commission decides to follow state law and bid this competitively, I would encourage all Harrison Square opponents to work together to put forth an independent bid. I've worked on a significant proposal or two in my day and I would be willing to help.

And I suppose a few more subsidies might be in order too - why not...

A Quick Thought on Property Tax Reform

Much of this recent debate has ignored the fundamental problem of rising property taxes and that's an increase in local spending. Shifting part of the burden from property owners to income earners will not solve the problem. Inevitably, we will be back in the same position except we will have even higher taxes. Any solution must deal with the underlying spending issue.

Matt Kelty has his plan for property tax reform on his website - Cut it, Cap it, Make it Permanent. There are parts of this plan I agree with and I'm happy that Kelty at least acknowledges what the problem is:

While I am critical of the property tax system in theory and in practice I recognize and fully agree with Gov. Daniels that ultimately this crisis has its roots in out-of-control local government spending and borrowing. As Mayor I pledge to bring that spending under control. While I intend to speak more fully on this subject at a later date, when I am elected mayor my first annual budget will reflect zero growth in City spending.

I certainly look forward to hearing Kelty's plans to control spending, but I do not believe a zero growth budget is the answer as I think we need a permanent legislative solution. To be fair, I think Kelty is on the right track and I strongly agree with the following statement:

we are placing the tax burden disproportionately upon one group, without regard to their actual ability to bear this burden. Our property tax system has become indefensible and it must be changed.

I actually like the rhetoric here but I'm concerned he's not quite on the right track. And since Tom Henry hasn't released anything about property taxes I'm not sure where he's at either. I'm not going to make this a partisan issue because I believe we really need to work together to solve this problem. I've been modeling various solutions and I'm close to releasing my own plan - A Populist Approach to Property Tax Reform. This plan will address the major issues facing our current property tax crises.

I look forward to working with both candidates to get out of this property tax quagmire...

Subsidy Square

Today's JG story covering the downtown hotel agreement points out a couple of items that should irritate even the most adamant Harrison Square supporters. First, the idea of revenue sharing between the hotel and the city:

The city also agreed to share in revenues and losses with the hotel.

I know this got slipped into the story as almost an afterthought but THIS IS A BIG DEAL. To my knowledge this has never been publicly discussed and certainly wasn't part of the memorandum of understanding. Early on, Mark Becker discussed the idea of the hotel sharing profit above certain benchmarks and this was put into the MOA:

11. The Commission and Development Team agree to negotiate, in a final Development Agreement, a provision to give the Commission and/or GWC an economic interest in the Hotel in the event, after the first full five calendar years of the Hotel's operation, the Hotel is then achieving and expected to continue achieving certain minimum threshold investor returns.

I remember discussing this with Mike Sylvester and we both agreed that this was cleverly worded to provide a way for the hotel to mitigate any possible future losses. It was simply not plausible that the hotel would give away profit without the possibility of the city taking on losses. If Lanka's reporting is accurate then the city needs to explain why this was left out of the MOA. I would not be surprised to find out that they deliberately left it out as it certainly would've been a contentious issue.

The next disturbing part of the story covers the idea of a city-subsidized walkway:

The hotel agreement is contingent upon the city constructing an enclosed walkway from the hotel to Grand Wayne Center at the city’s cost. Becker said such a bridge would cost less than $1 million. The skywalk had not been discussed publicly before, and Becker confirmed it will be an additional public subsidy for the project.

This was not in the memorandum of understanding. We're already building them a parking garage, giving them all the land for the project, and giving them $2.5 Million in cash - with another possible cash subsidy 10 years down the road. Why should we kick in an extra $1 Million for the walkway? It certainly can't be argued that the walkway is critical to the business operations of the hotel. Hell, why not subsidize the whole damn thing for them? Is there anything the city and the redevelopment commission would say no to at this point?

Let's not forget that the projected hotel occupancy rates border on President Bush-like delusion. Who in their right mind would use the most optimistic numbers possible when deciding to invest in a project? These occupancy numbers are a perfect example of the city's wanton disregard for our tax dollars...

Sunday JG Roundup

I know this is a little late but I thought I'd link to few stories that caught my eye in today's JG.

Sylvia Smith hits the nail on the head with respect to Souder's fake-concern over Iraq policy:

Souder was so close to voting last week to require the bulk of the troops to be withdrawn by next spring. He said he probably would have supported a fall deadline. It seems to me if a lawmaker has reached a decision that a major troop withdrawal is the proper course, then quibbling over six months is not something to defend to a family from New Haven that loses a son or daughter to the next IED.

Notice that Souder hasn't been proposing any bipartisan legislation to bring our troops home.

Karen Francisco and Tracy Warner want you to believe that nobody is responsible for your increase in property taxes - you know, stuff happens:

Who’s to blame for higher tax bills?

The decisions of so many officials affect tax bills that none is responsible.

Would you expect anything less from an editorial page that has never seen a tax increase it didn't like?

Kudos to the Three Rivers Festival workers, Allen County Sheriff Ken Fries and all the officers that helped apprehend a purse snatcher.

A couple of personal observations
Another bar closed today - Fenders, located in the shopping center at Coldwater and Dupont, is officially closed

A few people I spoke with were quite annoyed by the political presence of both mayoral campaigns at the TRF parade. They were trying to enjoy the event with their kids and were being constantly bombarded with political propaganda.

Tom Henry and troops at TRF parade

Iraqi Parliament is a Complete Joke

Well our troops are going to continue to try and provide security so that a political reconciliation can occur. The only problem is that the politicians are going on vacation:

The White House on Friday appeared resigned to the fact that the Iraqi parliament is going to take August off, even though it has just eight weeks to show progress on military, political and economic benchmarks prescribed by the United States.

"My understanding is at this juncture they're going to take August off, but, you know, they may change their minds," White House press secretary Tony Snow said.

How can anyone support this surge with a straight face after this? If the Iraqi parliament won't even take their responsibilities seriously then we should certainly re-evaluate our priorities. And the excuse Tony Snow gives is so lame, so ridiculous that you won't even believe it:

"You know, it's 130 degrees in Baghdad in August," he said, sympathetically.

Snow was reminded that U.S. troops will be continuing to fight throughout August in the heat.

"You know, that's a good point," Snow said.

Awful jackass...

Matt Kelty Reneges on His Pledge to Cut Taxes

Back in May, Matt Kelty made a pledge that he was going to cut property taxes by 10%. Many, including myself, thought this was simply not going to be possible. Now, after Kelty appears to have come to the same realization, he has changed his tune and simply says that he will call for zero-growth in the city budget.

Well, guess what? That ain't gonna cut your taxes by 10%. And does Kelty offer up any actual plan to level spending? Of course not, it's all smoke and mirrors. Making matters worse he doesn't seem to understand the options available to local government as he thinks House Bill 1478 will some how lower the tax burden:

Kelty said as the Aug. 1 deadline for the bill that allows City Council to set tax policy approaches, he would like to see council create a permanent reduction of taxes in whatever method it chooses.

Readers should understand that 1478 is, by design, revenue neutral - it will not lower taxes. Any candidate running for mayor should understand this. Will the Kelty campaign continue to make promises they can't keep? There was yet another example in today's JG story about the city light fund. Kelty spokesman Mark Garvin said

In general, he would support spending the money only if it would contribute to creating lots of high-paying jobs.

That's not what he said before. He was going to put $5 Million into a student loan forgiveness program - how does that create jobs? And what exactly does he plan to do? The current administration thinks Harrison Square is going to create high-paying jobs so Garvin's generalization is pointless.

This is why I want Henry talking about issues because I believe it's a battle Kelty can't win. He pandered his way through the primary due to the ineptness of the Peters campaign but that isn't going to fly in the general election. Matt Kelty should be prepared to defend his positions...

Ask and Ye Shall Receive

Yesterday I was quite perturbed at the lack of action from the Henry campaign. Today, they put out a news release describing their plan for the City Light Fund money. This will likely be one of the major issues of this election cycle as voters want to know what the candidates plan to do with the $40 Million from the fund. Henry's idea is to let the people help decide how the money should be used - not a bad idea in this political environment:

The fund belongs to the people of Fort Wayne. When Mayor, I will ensure that every citizen has the chance be part of choosing what we do with it. Henry proposes a proactive, citizen-participation process including the following steps:

-Citywide brainstorming sessions throughout 2008 supported by broad outreach and guided by inclusive ground rules;

-Prioritization and determination of option costs and feasibility by City staff, professional experts as needed, and a steering group representative of the community;

-Release of interim results in 2009;

-Public input sessions to further refine direction in 2009; and

-Preparation and presentation of the administration's recommendations for action late in 2009.

The fact that Tom Henry plans to engage the citizenry in this process is a welcome sign for those of us that want local government to be accessible and transparent. Let's contrast Henry's position with that of Matt Kelty:

Republican mayoral nominee Matt Kelty said he would not try to find a place to spend the money. He said he would likely put most of the money into another trust as a way to reinvest for the city’s future.

This answer is completely unacceptable. Kelty needs to open up and tell the voters of this city under what conditions he would spend the money. And if he did choose to spend it then what would his plan be? Kelty is side-stepping an important issue and voters should not allow it. The City Light Fund contains a lot of money and it deserves to be more than an afterthought...

It's Time for Henry to Make His Move

There have been recent grumblings about the blogosphere and the Journal Gazette concerning the lack of issues coming from the Henry campaign. This has also been disturbing to me for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, with Kelty taking so much heat over the campaign finance issue Henry should be dictating the race - he's not. It is unnecessary to sit back and wait for Kelty-gate to blow over. Of course the media is going to want to ask about campaign finances but they are going to do that no matter how long the campaign waits. And who cares if they do ask? It simply gives the Henry campaign an opportunity to remind voters that if they want an open and transparent administration then they should vote for Tom Henry. It's not as if that's an unpopular position.

I also found it interesting that Jason Ascher was let go because he "didn't have the necessary experience working with the the media to the level necessary for this year’s mayoral race". Well to be effective, the campaign must actually engage the media and frankly I haven't seen it. For example, the issue that Kelty was most vulnerable on was the FWCS facilities project. It was wildly unpopular and Kelty was hypocritically-mum on the subject. I informed people months ago that Kelty would shy away from this issue and it was going to be a genuine opportunity for Henry to gain ground. The reason was obvious - Kelty is an architect and if he loses the mayoral race he doesn't want to burn bridges to his business.

That opportunity is now gone. There are certainly more on the horizon but to take advantage the Henry campaign must come out of its shell and start a discussion with the voters of this community. The issues voters care most about in this campaign are quite obvious - it's taxes and government's disdain for the voice of the people.

I agreed with Charlotte Weybright 2 months ago when she said:

The Tom Henry for Mayor website is now up and running. It is fairly simple at this time, but I hope (and assume) it will be fleshed out in the next few weeks. And, I mean the next few weeks - the earlier the better. The Tom Henry for Mayor website has a link that states, “Watch this space for Tom’s statements on the issues. They will be posted here as his ideas for the future of Fort Wayne are unveiled.” I absolutely support Tom Henry, and I believe he is, by far and away, the best qualified candidate. However, many voters only have a vague idea of the qualifications and positions of the mayoral candidates.

Last year, Tom Hayhurst’s campaign manager made the decision to slowly release Dr. Hayhurst’s positions beginning late in the summer. Despite several of us who urged early release, Dr. Hayhurst’s positions were held until late in the season. This left too little time for the voter to get a sense of who Tom was and his qualifications for the office of Third District Representative.

What we're seeing is a repeat of that campaign strategy. It was a bad strategy then and it's a bad strategy now. It's still somewhat early, but the Henry campaign should listen to the people - and the people want to discuss the issues...

Smoking Ban Resurfaces at City Council

Tonight's city council meeting was quite interesting. Around 60 opponents of the smoking ban, including several bar owners, showed up to voice their displeasure about the new smoking ordinance. At the end of the meeting they had their spokesman, Mikeal Vaughn, a state representative with the Indiana Niteclub Association, make their case that the ban was putting bars out of business.

Now I'm going to try and avoid rehashing this debate because I'm already on record. But I feel compelled to point out that Vaughn is a terrible spokesman. He rambled on for what must've been 25 minutes saying the same thing over and over. He made his point in the first 5 minutes and should've just went on his way. He was so bad that his own supporters were mumbling that he should just shut up.

He also threw out several threats about re-election that just rang hollow. Does he not think that people were energized in the primary? I'm pretty sure that the councilmen know that many people are upset - they don't need some outsider that probably doesn't know the first thing about local politics making threats.

Any bar owner or employee could've done a better job than Vaughn - they are personally vested and are the ones with the most to lose. I would strongly suggest that they ditch Vaughn and take up their own cause - he might be doing more harm than good...

Jill Long Thompson's Fort Wayne Announcement

I was at Jill's gubernatorial announcement today and there was a crowd of about 100 people that seemed very enthusiastic about her campaign. I think she's going to be a good candidate as it sounds like she's going to run a populist campaign based around reforming our state tax structure and protecting Indiana jobs.

I know she's behind in the money-race but I wouldn't count her out as a populist message can be very powerful in this state...

Henry Gets New Campaign Manager

From the News-Sentinel:

Minnesota native Joe Fox's first day as Henry's new campaign manager was Monday. The graduate of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn., has worked for mayoral campaigns in Minnesota and on a U.S. Senate race. He replaces Jason Ascher, who left a little more than a month into the job. Ascher called it a mutual decision between him and Henry.

Hopefully he sticks around longer than Ascher did...

A Candid Interview with Republican Sam Talarico (Part 2 of 2)

In Part 2 of this interview Sam gives us his thoughts on Democratic chair Kevin Knuth, Mayor Richard and the current mayoral campaign. He also pulls no punches when discussing the Kelty campaign and their campaign finance reports. Once again I've provided a few choice tidbits but I think it's all worth reading (Download Part2 here):

Pruitt: is there really a divide within the party establishment if you will, or those at party headquarters? Is there a really a divide there or is that overblown.

Talarico: I’m not sure divide is that right word because divide implies that there’s half the room in favor of Matt Kelty. I know that there’s just a lot of Republicans that feel strongly that he’s just not the person for the mayoral job...

I like Matt personally, he is a nice guy. I would support him for most legislative type positions, but being the mayor of the 2nd largest city in Indiana is something very different. It’s not a legislative position where you’re one of a hundred; you’re the CEO of this huge entity. And I’m just not convinced he has the background for it. He’s done things in his campaign that make me feel he’s not the person for it...

All I can say is given the transaction as it played out, I can not imagine as a candidate not having come to the conclusion that I needed to report who gave me that loan. Notwithstanding what the form said or anything else, I just can’t imagine me going to my treasurer and saying I just got a loan from Jeff Pruitt for $150,000 but it’s in my account so I’m gonna show it from me. I mean my treasurer would’ve been like “what the heck are you thinking?”

Ouch. When a respected Republican councilman has this little confidence in the party's mayoral candidate - well I think people better start listening...

A Candid Interview with Republican Councilman Sam Talarico (Part 1 of 2)

About a week ago I sat down for an interview with Republican Sam Talarico, Jr. Sam's been on the Fort Wayne city council for 2 terms and has chosen not to seek re-election this time around. He has served this city well even if we don't always agree on the issues. He and Dr Hayhurst are going to be tough to replace.

I was originally only going to post parts of the interview followed by my comments. However, I think the interview was entertaining enough that readers will want to read the entire thing w/o sifting through my commentary. Therefore, I've decided to post the entire interview, unedited, but split into two parts. In Part1 Sam disses Angry White Boy, discusses how he got involved with local politics, and talks about consolidation among other things.

In Part2 he discusses Democratic Chair Kevin Knuth, Mayor Richard and the upcoming mayoral race - Matt Kelty in particular. So be sure to come back tomorrow for that. I've taken a couple of choice parts from Part1 and posted them below but I would encourage everyone to read the whole thing (Download Part1 Here):

Talarico: On the federal and state level I certainly do not agree with either party all the time and I’m definitely more of a moderate but I tend to agree with Republicans more than Democrats so I think I’m in the right spot.

Although when I see some of the stuff from Angry White Boy, and stuff like that, it makes me wonder. Any party that has a home for him is kind of alarming.

Pruitt: Now let me put you on the spot a little bit while we’re talking about candidates. You seem to be fairly close to Democratic candidate Tim Pape – do you support his re-election?

Talarico: Yea, I would imagine that I will contribute to Tim’s campaign. Tim has been an outstanding councilmember and I think he’s been a part of this new generation of people that have pushed things forward. I certainly like his opponent a lot, nice guy, I’ll probably get in trouble for doing it but I will probably contribute to Tim’s campaign.

TIF Debate Reaches the Front Page

Ben Lanka has an excellent front page story discussing the use of TIF districts here in Fort Wayne. It's about time the local media started making people aware of these districts and how they affect the local community and the taxes we pay. I've been trying to publicize the negative impact these districts can have for quite some time:

Now here's the problem, the city is facing a tremendous amount of debt. The local school board is trying to raise our property taxes by a half-BILLION dollars. As these government expenditures continue to rise SOMEBODY has to pay for them. Unfortunately the properties inside these special tax districts won't contribute to the rising costs of city/county/school government. That means that everyone else has to continue to pay a larger share because the city is essentially removing more and more property from the tax paying population.

I also spoke against the continual expansion of the TIF at the city council's public hearing on Harrison Square - video of that speech can be found here.

I think the more people come to understand what the TIF district actually is, the more hesitant they will be to support it. I'd like to address one particular point in today's article. Karen Goldner, 2nd District Council candidate and reader of this blog, was interviewed for the story:

People can’t just look at the TIF numbers in a vacuum, said Karen Goldner of the Fort Wayne Redevelopment Commission. It may be easy to say without TIFs, people would see a 3 percent reduction in property taxes, but the issue is far more complicated

I certainly agree with Karen that it's a complicated issue. One of the complications is that you cannot just take the amount of property found in TIF districts (3% in Fort Wayne not including Harrison Square) and claim that property taxes are only affected by that amount. The reason is that these TIF districts are using a disproportional amount of services.

Just as an example, at places like Jefferson Pointe and Harrison Square there will need to be more police than your typical neighborhood due to the large crowds of people. These are resources that are being pulled away from the general taxpaying population. So one of two things must happen, either the taxpayers get less resources or they pay more for the same amount of resources. Note that this extra cost is above and beyond what is lost in property taxes alone.

I'm glad the community is now going to have this debate. Just because you CAN use the TIF district to pay for a pet project doesn't make it a wise choice. To be fair, I think that using the TIF for Harrison Square is more reasonable than using it for Jefferson Pointe. But either way I think we should stop the practice and let these current projects be the catalysts we were promised they would be...

Langley Out of 4th District Council Race

Ben Lanka and Niki Kelly report in today's Political Notebook section of the JG that Democratic candidate Charles Langley has withdrawn from the 4th district city council race:

Charles Langley, who won a contested Democratic primary this spring, filed papers Thursday with the Allen County Election Board to remove his name from the ballot.

According to a letter written by Langley, he was promoted by the Southwest Allen County Schools Board on June 5 to department coordinator for social studies at Summit Middle School, where he teaches.

“It is my fear that with these new responsibilities in addition to potentially holding a political office that my performance in education would at times be lackluster,” he wrote. “I will not chance giving less than my best for one second to education.”

It's really too bad - Charles is a very genuine person, was a good candidate and the city needs more young people active in local politics. I sincerely hope that party members don't hold any ill will towards Charles because I think he would make an excellent candidate in the future. I would like to publicly wish him well in his new position.

According to Allen County Democratic Party Chairman Kevin Knuth the party still plans on fielding a candidate against Republican candidate Mitch Harper:

Kevin Knuth, Allen County Democratic chairman, said Langley’s withdrawal doesn’t mean Harper will get a free pass this fall.

He said the party has about a month to fill a vacancy created by a withdrawal and guaranteed a Democrat would run for the seat.

Councilman Tom Hayhurst, D-4th, announced this year he won’t seek re-election.

Keeping the district’s seat is critical for the Democrats to have any chance of recapturing a council majority.

Let's be honest here. The only candidate that probably has a shot at beating Harper at this point would be Dr Hayhurst. Hayhurst has been a good councilman and I sincerely hope he might reconsider stepping down. For those of you that would like to see Dr Tom enter the race - feel free to send him an e-mail (tom.hayhurst@verizon.net) voicing your support...

JG Editorial Board Obviously Didn't Follow the Valerie Plame Investigation

This the 2nd time the JG editorial page has been wildly off the mark with regards to the Scooter Libby trial. Their parroting of right-wing talking points is either proof that they didn't follow the case and have no idea what they're talking about, or that they believe in the doctrine of "both sides are equally right and we must give equal credence to both arguments".

I originally wrote a much longer point-by-point rebuttal but I ultimately decided to only focus on one specific portion of the editorial. I did this because it is most blatantly incorrect statement I have ever seen from the JG editorial page. And after exposing this the credibility of the entire piece is shot. The JG opines:

The conviction of I. Lewis Scooter Libby was highly suspect and did not serve democracy. Whether Plame really was an unknown CIA operative was questionable.

Her covert status was not under question whatsoever - except perhaps by the pundits on Faux News. Special Prosecutoer Patrick Fitzgerald publicly said she was covert:

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Obviously that wasn't enough for the JG. But when the Bush-appointed director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, releases a statement to Congress telling them that she was covert - I mean what more do they need:

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

Does it get any more cut and dry than that? Where is the "questionable" part of that statement? Tracy Warner should print an immediate retraction...

We, the people, want impeachment NOW!

Yesterday, George Bush decided to let Scooter Libby, the one man who was convicted for the lies around the Iraq war, avoid serving out his prison sentence. Even Paris Hilton served more jail time than he will. And letting Libby off the hook is only the most recent example of a consistent Bush administration pattern of obstruction of justice. Warrantless wiretaps, Alberto Gonzalez, the original outing of Valerie Plame; we're all familiar with the numerous past transgressions by these criminals.

As they say in civics class, America is a country of laws, not of men. It's time for Congress to stand up and use those laws to rid our country of the men who are systematically dismantling our constitution and ignoring the checks and balances that have always protected our democracy. Bush and Cheney think their administration is above the law. That's un-American, and this July 4th it's time for Congress to re-assert its constitutional authority and stop the administration's obstruction of justice.

Congress can start by demanding answers from the Bush administration about the Iraq war and their illegal spying program, and not backing down until they get them. Cheney won't testify? Subpoena him. He won't come? Hold him in contempt of Congress and send over the police. And if that doesn't work, impeach the guy. We just can't let President Bush and his administration continue to wipe their feet on our Constitution.

Let's celebrate Independence Day by reaffirming the basic, founding idea of our government: No one, not even the president of the United States, is above the law. Sign this petition to urge Congress to act NOW! If enough of us make enough noise, and for long enough, and from all corners of our country, then perhaps this Congress will stiffen it's spine and move to remedy the poison that has seeped into our land for far too long now.

After you've signed the petition and pestered your own Congress critter, join me by copying this post to your own blog, and adding your blog to the list below. Let's take this message of unity and support to every corner of America, and show just how many of us are ready to take back America!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Instructions:

1.- Copy and paste this message as a new post on your own blog.

2. - Replace one of the “Impeach NOW” tags in the matrix below with your anchor text (Blog name) of choice with your blog’s URL (Don't hesitate to e-mail me if you have questions about this!). Please keep anchor text to a max of 3 words to keep the matrix size manageable.

3. - Encourage and invite your readers to do the same and soon this can grow virally.

4.- The above steps will not only add your voice to the chorus for impeachment, but will also increase your Technorati stats as an added bonus.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

We, the undersigned bloggers of America, agreeing that dissent is the truest form of patriotism, hereby publicly voice our unanimous discontent with the Bush administration and beseech the Congress of the United States of America to provide redress by immediately initiating impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.

Left in Aboite Fort Wayne Left Left of Centrist Monticello America Weeps Get Your Own Der Parson's Rant The Katrinacrat Let's Talk About It Carol for Peace Divided States bu$hmeriKa Dizzy Dayz Anti-bush pro-usa States-a-Mind Life’s Journey A Poetic Justice The Peace Tree Poets For Peace The Anti-War Theatre APJ Photomontage LeftwingNutJob The Sirens Chronicles Sumo Merriment People in the Sun John's Blog i'm sorry world Moondanzerdelivers ViceZilla's Views MyView of the World Lionboi Blues & News Worldwide SawdustImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW

Please note that I will also add your link to THIS post as I get "pings" back from you via Technorati. Let's spread this thing like wildfire!!

Matt Kelty Case Going to Grand Jury

The JG has the story:

The case surrounding $158,000 in loans to Republican mayoral nominee Matt Kelty will go before a grand jury.

Special Prosecutor Dan Sigler said Tuesday morning that he asked Allen County Superior Judge Fran Gull to empanel a grand jury to hear testimony surrounding the case. Sigler was appointed by Allen County Prosecutor Karen Richards to investigate how Kelty reported the loans on his campaign finance reports.

Sigler said he felt calling a grand jury is appropriate because of the large amount of information related to the case.

This was the right decision as transparent campaign financing is too important to be left to a partisan election board. Of course this is a major setback for the Kelty campaign:

Kelty said he anticipated Sigler calling a grand jury but was disappointed in the decision.

“Even though it’s not a surprise, I was hoping he would find no merit in the complaint and simply say so,” Kelty said.

This isn't going away anytime soon for Matt Kelty and it means more money for his attorney, Jim Bopp, and less for his campaign...

County Commissioners Should Choose Mike Sylvester (UPDATED)

UPDATE: Well nevermind. In my haste I made a poor assumption that Mike was just outside of the city limits but it turns out he's not. I should've know better but thanks to Karen Goldner for pointing out my oversight...

As required by state law (brought to the forefront by Mitch Harper) Ed Rousseau and Paul Shaffer are off the Fort Wayne-Allen County Convention and Tourism Authority board. State law requires members to be residents within the county but outside the city limits and both Shaffer and Rousseau do not meet this requirement.

Now the county commissioners need to replace them and I believe local blogger, and CPA, Mike Sylvester would make an excellent choice. I must apologize to Mike as he has no idea I'm writing this and I'm not sure if he even wants to be on the board. Mike is a fiscal conservative with a strong belief in open government. This particular board needs people with that ideology. In an editorial, the JG explains the importance of this particular board:

The county commissioners need to replace them with the best possible appointees – and do it as quickly as responsibly possible. The authority must soon decide on the city’s request to allocate $250,000 a year for 10 years to the Harrison Square project.

The convention and tourism authority’s most visible community role is in operating Grand Wayne Center. But the authority also serves as the local capital improvements board and, if a number of local officials have their way, could someday wield significant new power in approving and financing capital projects.

As a CPA Mike Sylvester is clearly qualified for this position. Mike should throw his hat in the ring and the County Commissioners should nominate him to serve this community...

Wholesale Changes Needed Within FWCS Board

If the preliminary numbers being reported are correct then the Blues have won in decisive fashion. This would be a victory for taxpayers within the Fort Wayne Community School district and absolutely nobody deserves more credit than Evert Mol. Evert has been branded a liar, and probably every other name in the book, but at the end of the day he stood up for the rest of us and helped beat back what must have been one of the largest tax increases in the history of this district.

So if the public is so opposed to this plan then how did the current school board come to garner such audacity? The answer is voter apathy. For far too long voters in this community have ignored school board races and this proposed $800 Million tax increase is a stark reminder of the power the local school board yields. What this community needs is a wholesale takeover of the school board by people that believe in accountability and fiscal responsibility. Voters might remember such a landslide in the County Council race 8 years ago.

There is no one more qualified to lead this coup d'etat than Evert Mol himself. The man has volunteered his time for several years and has proven to be a strong supporter of accountability and fiscal responsibility. Let me be the first to say that this community needs Mr Mol's leadership.

Every single member of the FWCS board (except Jon Olinger) should be voted out of office. I hope Evert Mol will continue his advocacy for FWCS by leading the ticket for challengers in the next election.

I am personally considering running for the school board and I would proudly stand beside Evert to usher in a new generation of boardmembers that would repeal the rubberstamp that this group has given to Wendy Robinson and her administration...

Latham and FSSA Criticism Is Justified

A letter in today's JG really got under my skin. The author doesn't think the criticism of Michael Latham is fair:

There have been attempts to discredit Latham by accusing him of wrongdoing or the lack of doing anything while working for the State’s Family and Social Services Administration to create a committee of clergymen. Latham was appointed by Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Latham’s pay, credentials and education were mentioned as if they had anything to do with his job performance.

Huh? his credentials and educational background were challenged because his performance has been lacking. Making matters worse, FSSA secretary Mitch Roob said he plans to review the program after 24 months. Are you kidding me? For an administration that wants to run government like a business they are particularly bad at doing so. Can anyone imagine a new program not having any oversight or formal review for 24 months? That's simply unheard of in the private sector.

The author goes on to "explain" why Latham shouldn't be criticized:

The truth of the matter is the man is a black Christian backed by a Republican. Some people can’t stand that. They will go to any measure to discredit a person so he or she will not succeed. Fortunately, many have been stopped in their efforts to discredit people such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Why can’t we just be proud of this fine outstanding black man in the community who cares about God, his family and all people? I’m proud of him.

Latham doesn't deserve a pass because he's a black Christian. He should be held to the same standards as everyone else. The man is getting $60k of taxpayer money and has done absolutely nothing to justify his salary. Should we hand out $60k checks to everyone that "cares about God, his family and all people"?

This is crony-capitalism at it's worst and this type of "privatization" is at the core of Governor Daniels' philosophy. Notice they don't want to truly privatize these services and allow employees to see whatever mental health provider they want. No, the Governor wants to create a monopoly and only allow people to see his choice. And oh by the way, his choice is a major campaign supporter and unqualified for the position. This is the epitome of the modern day Republican party and is a clear sign the party has lost its way with regards to fiscal conservatism...

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

The FWCS Yellow Petition Bus, empty and parked on the side of the road...

Demand Answers From City Council Candidates

It appears the city council will likely vote to postpone their decision on whether or not to take advantage of a new state law that would allow them to shift some of the property tax burden onto the income tax. While I don't disagree with this decision, I think it's important for those running for election to go on record about this possible shift in taxes. I have already gone on record as being adamantly opposed to this idea:

let me remind readers that voting for a new tax in hopes of reducing another tax always results in increased taxes. Keep this in mind during future council meetings when you hear the various members tell you how much this will benefit you. It won't. Ultimately it will give local government more money to spend which means you will have less to spend.

However, if there were a way to cap property taxes (indexed to inflation) then I would consider the proposal. Either way if candidates don't go on the record now then the public runs the risk of electing someone that might significantly raise their taxes and their only recourse would be to wait nearly 4 more years before throwing them out. This is unacceptable.

Voters need to demand answers from the candidates and wishy-washy answers are unacceptable as well. They should specifically demand to know under what circumstances the candidates would support the shift in tax burden. They should also demand to know how the candidates plan on keeping the shift revenue neutral.

This, along with the city light fund money, should be two of the top issues for city council candidates...