A Message from Barry Welsh

I represent that change!

Our country is at a crossroads. We can do something we have not done for a number of years, we can progress, we can move forward, we can change how things are, or we can continue on the path that this country has been driven down. We can have change or we can have more of the same. I represent change.

Our nation is spending two hundred and twenty thousand dollars a minute in Iraq and even though it may not be in the news, we continue to loose brave soldiers in a mounting number. We can vote for 100 more years of war or we can make a change. I represent that change.

We can work toward providing health coverage for all citizens and take the burden off of citizens and employers, or we can keep sending to Washington those that have the attitude of "I have mine, too bad about everybody else", because that is the attitude of those that will not even support S-CHIP legislation for the kids. We need to make certain that everyone has access to health care and seniors have affordable prescriptions. I represent that change.

Our district has lost manufacturing jobs, and unions are being threatened with extinction, and this district has one of the highest poverty levels in the nation, and yet for seven years we have been told that the economy is great. We can have more of that, or we can have change. I represent that change.

I have a background, not only in ministry and caring for the least among us, but also in economics and finance. I was a national merit scholar; I am a good candidate and will make you proud as your representative. My opponent has a background in radio, and comes from a family of big oil. We can have more of the same, or we can change and send someone that knows and cares about your economy. I represent that change.

Our economy needs fixing. We need real economic stimulus, not the government's version of a buy out. I have the answer. Let's start making things in America and quit buying from China as there is always a threat of poison. If you want to stimulate the economy, put the good workers of America back to work making quality American products with a living wage, that will stimulate the economy. I represent that change

I am standing for office with the same positions, and on the same issues as last cycle, because I was right two years ago, and I am right now, and that should tell you I am more than qualified and deserving of your support and your vote. I had enough two years ago, and you did too, and now everybody else is catching up with us, and it is our time. It is time to take our district back. It is time to change. It is time to have the focus back on the communities, and not on the career of the congressman. It is time to hearken to the days of Phil Sharp and Lee Hamilton, when the communities and the people, were the focus of the representative, not the corporations, and the Washington D.C. lobbyists. My opponent often says he is a Christian, a Conservative, and a Republican in that order, and doesn't mention American. It is time we had someone from this district that put the citizens of this great nation ahead of their allegiance to their political party. I represent that change.

My friends, I have struggled, and I have over come. I have been knocked down, and I have gotten back up. This is something that most of you can identify with, because you have been knocked down, and you got back up. I had a lung disease when I was a little boy and I was not supposed to make it, but I over came. I had a head injury when I was in high school and I was not supposed to make it, but I over came. They said I was too small to play football, so I earned a college scholarship. I over came. You have also over come, and together, we shall overcome. We have to. We have to have change. We have to take our country back. We have to defend our rights and our constitution. We shall overcome, because we have to. The alternative is not acceptable. We have to change. Together we can make that change happen. There is no one that is inevitable. There is no one that is unbeatable. There is a time for change, and this is that time. I represent that change.

I am asking for your support, your contributions, your voice in spreading the message, I am asking you to go to www.barrywelsh.org, our website, I am asking for your time on your computer in sending emails, your phone in making calls, and I am asking for one of the most precious things you have, I am asking for your vote.

There is a time for change and this is that time. I represent that change. Together we will make that change happen.

Thank you for all that you do and God Bless you, now on to victory.

- Barry Welsh

"Good Times"

My daughter's future memories invoked my old ones:

My oldest daughter, Samantha, turned 8 yesterday. This year she wanted to have a skating party for the occasion, so my wife reserved a birthday party at Roller Dome South (pictured at left). Sam's been to RDS a few times for school parties and such; I hadn't been there since, to the best of my recollection, 1978 or so. That would have made me 14 years old at the time. I really don't recall being a roller skating fan - I think it was more along the lines if "that's where the girls hang out". . .

Walking in tonight, I was still amazed at the familiarity of the place after three decades and the handful of times that I had actually been there back in those days. I'm sure that the walls have been painted different colors and pinball games have morphed into video games, but it was still sort of nostalgic.

While the physical atmosphere seemed little different to my old eyes, the actual atmosphere of the place was quite changed. Although this may just be a generational thing. . . the music was 95% hip-hop or along those lines. As I don't normally hang out at roller rinks, I can't say with any certainty whether or not that is the current trend in such places. When last I had set foot into one, disco was the music du jour and, as skating, much like dancing, is all about what you can groove to, I was likely just the old guy out of his comfortable little pond. Still, I kept waiting for the DJ (Who I later discovered to also be the janitor) to play "Le Freak"!



Sam had a great time, and that's what matters. She was enthralled by my tales of skating in this very same rink so very long ago, in the way that only kids of a certain age can be before they grow old enough to find you boring, old-fashioned, and embarrassing. I'm sure it's a memory I will cherish before long. . .

Ft.Wayne for Obama Rally

Join the Movement

Please join Allen County 4 Obama for an informational gathering. Meet local Obama supporters and learn how you can get involved. Change can’t happen without you! The event will be held at:

Downtown Library Branch

900 Library Plaza

Fort Wayne, IN 46802

February 27, 2008 at 7:15pm

hat tip: Karen Goldner

What's for dinner?

An investigation by The Humane Society of the United States at a cattle slaughterhouse has led to the largest beef recall in U.S. history. Their investigation documented animals too sick or injured to stand or walk—called "downers" by industry—being kicked, beaten, dragged with chains, shocked with electric prods, sprayed in the face with hoses, and rammed by forklifts in efforts to get them to their feet to pass USDA inspection. Warning: Graphic video!

Hispanics turning to Obama

¡Sí podemos! ¡Obama para el presidente!

Hillary Clinton was finally declared the winner of the New Mexico primary yesterday, after a nine day nightmare of hand counting 17,000 provisional votes in the state. For all of the trouble she picked up ONE additional delegate - I guess that may have been cheaper than Mitt Romney's!

And, much like Julie Rudiani, Hill is placing all of her eggs into one basket - the OH, TX, PA trifecta in a few weeks- as her final stand. How fitting that the Alamo is located in one of those states! Oddly enough, she may suffer the same fate as those brave defenders of yesteryear, AND from the very same folks - the Mexicans.

See, Hillary received the majority of hispanic votes in the earlier primary contests. That percentage has steadily declined, however, and was NOT improved by her firing of a top campaign official who happened to be hispanic herself. I can't speak for Pennsylvania, but I'm pretty damned sure that Texas has a large Mexican population and Ohio shares Indiana's growing hispanic populace due to a need for cheap farm labor.

On top of that, a friend sent me the following this afternoon - " Our Hispanic Voices Supports Barack Obama". Here's their video:



Oh, and they added the following message:

Final Post From Fort Wayne Left

To All,

I wanted to let all the readers of this site know that this will be my final post at Fort Wayne Left. I want to publicly thank John Good and Robert Rouse for allowing me to post here as well as helping me out with technical difficulties from time to time. Over the last year or so I have tried to do my part to make this a site that readers would enjoy knowing that they will be getting a unique perspective on local news and politics.

While I am stepping away from Fort Wayne Left, I am not leaving the local blogosphere. I am in the process of finalizing the design of a new site - Fort Wayne Politics. FWP will continue to provide my coverage of local politics but I want the site to be bigger than just me - thus the site will have additional authors that will be contributing as well.

I don't want to give any details about the new site right now but suffice to say we're going to try and expand our coverage and do even more than we've done in the past. I'm not sure what John has in store for this site but if he chooses to continue it then I will continue to visit and I would encourage others to as well.

Also, I want to thank all of the people that took the time to read, comment or e-mail me here at FWL. Blogging has been a blast and I have sincerely enjoy the interaction with all of you. I hope you'll consider making the move with me over to Fort Wayne Politics.

Permanently signing off from Fort Wayne Left,

Jeff

Anti-Smoking Ban Ordinance Is Not Dead

Tonight councilman Marty Bender introduced his ordinance to reverse part of the smoking ban that was enacted last year by city council. Bender's ordinance would allow smoking at bars and restaurants with bars (among other places) provided the bar area was totally enclosed and on a separate HVAC system. There was quite a nice show of support for Bender's ordinance given the inclement weather this evening; I would estimate there were roughly 70-80 people there to support his proposed changes.

Unfortunately Bender didn't fully understand the requirements to move an ordinance from introduction to committee. Bender was under the assumption that a simple majority of votes was all that was needed, but it actually takes 5 votes to move to committee for discussion. Since councilmen Hines and Shoaff were absent, Bender's ordinance needed 5 of the 7 present councilmembers to support his ordinance - he only received 4. The members voting for sending it to committee were Bender, Harper, Didier and Goldner with Smith, Pape and Brown voting against.


Right after Didier declared that the ordinance would not be sent to committee all of Bender's supporters got up and left and many were visibly upset. I don't think they understood that the ordinance is not completely dead and that Bender can re-introduce it 2 weeks from now when Hines and Shoaff would presumably be present. Furthermore they missed their opportunity at the end of the meeting to speak before council and tell them what they thought.

I think it's also important to remember that Hines was the member that introduced an amendment to the original ordinance that would've exempted bars in the first place. I've been told (not by him) that he's now against revisiting the issue but I don't know that to be fact.

So as much as it pains me to say it all is not lost for the anti-smoking ban crowd. After the meeting concluded, council attorney Joe Bonahoom was kind enough to explain what happened - including the fact that Bender could re-introduce the ordinance:

Open Government - The Next Step

In today's information age, citizens are demanding more access to local government than ever before. Despite good intentions, government agencies can fall behind the technological curve and thus fall short of meeting these requests. Technology to provide public access has become abundantly available at extremely low costs and now is the time for local government to rethink its strategy and provide more information than ever before.

Currently the city of Fort Wayne does a decent job of providing information to the citizenry. The council meetings are on cable television and the individual members are accessible as well. The new administration has also gone the extra mile by hiring a second public information officer to help the situation. Still there is much more we can do.

Recently councilman Mitch Harper has taken to podcasting the audio of the city council meetings. While this is a step in the right direction it's a step we should be able to completely skip as we look toward implementing better solutions.

Public advocacy group Fort Wayne Public 1 is requesting that the administration and the council consider forming a Public Access Board to identify new ways the city can provide information to the public. I am a strong proponent of this idea as the most efficient way to provide these services is to gather input from the public on what information is wanted and how that information should be disseminated. I feel that this board would not only help meet citizen requests, but also help the city become a national example of how local government can and should provide public access.

The following letter was sent today by Fort Wayne Public 1 to the city council, mayor and deputy mayor:

Since its inaugural meeting in December, Fort Wayne Public I has been actively espousing the principles of Open Government in the Fort Wayne community at all levels of public governance. There are a host of possible courses of changes that could be explored to further citizen interest and involvement in civic affairs through principles of open government—a goal all agree is worth pursuing and achieving.

Public I has prepared an Issue Paper including several avenues for recommended changes. Its final draft will be shared with interested parties at the City, County, Township levels of governance, as well as such public bodies as the School Boards, Library Board, and Housing Authority.

The Fort Wayne City Council could now seize the opportunity to lead an initiative to explore improvements in increasing citizen knowledge, access, and involvement in civic affairs. As a springboard for dialogue, Public I would be privileged to share the Issue Paper on this important issue.

This is a request to the Fort Wayne Common Council to form either a Public Access Board or a Public Access Advisory Committee to explore and recommend specific open government changes designed to ensure an informed and involved citizenry. This entity would consist of representation and leadership from Council members and include other public entities and public citizens.

Public I pledges cooperation in such an innovative endeavor. It is an opportunity for the City of Fort Wayne to be a model for other communities by adopting a proactive model and expressing a commitment to explore changes to further strengthen the public trust between public bodies and the citizens of the community.

We thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely:

Daniel J. Jehl, Coordinator
Fort Wayne Public I

Human Resources Director To Leave the Henry Administration

Chloretha Davie is on administrative leave and will be leaving her job as Director of Human Resources. No further details at this time.

Chloretha is the wife of recently retired fire chief Tim Davie

FWCS Board President Redefines "Tax Increase"

Only a member of the Fort Wayne Community School board could argue that the city's decision to increase the levy by 4% is not a tax increase. You can read Fort Wayne Community School board president Mark GiaQuinta's letter to the JG here, but I also want to rebut a few of his points:

As I understand it, last summer the former City Council reduced the city’s budget by almost $4 million with no anticipation that the state legislature would cut municipal funding statewide by an even greater amount.

Anyone that didn't anticipate that the legislature was going to do something drastic regarding property taxes simply wasn't paying attention - and I hardly think our city council fell into that category. They knew it was coming but chose to play politics instead.

Mayor Tom Henry’s attempt to restore the $4 million is the right thing to do. To characterize his common-sense approach as a “tax increase” is nonsense.

I appreciate Henry for demonstrating the common-sense leadership he promised. Shame on those who would jeopardize key city services by mischaracterizing his attempt to preserve public safety and other key services we so desperately need.

The budget was passed with a 4% levy cut by the previous council. Everyone expected our tax bills to be reduced by that amount. When the new council decides to retroactively increase the levy that is raising taxes. What else could one call it? There is no mischaracterization here and no need to engage in an argument of semantics either.

I thought the previous council was acting recklessly when they voted for the levy cut but that doesn't change the fact that it passed. And it definitely doesn't change the fact that the cut was rescinded - even if it was the fiscally responsible thing to do. To most people that's tantamount to a tax increase but I guess that logic doesn't apply to members of the Fort Wayne Community School board. Let's not forget that board member Carol Coen once infamously stated that we had all received a tax break because she didn't raise our taxes...

Washington GOP Supresses Its Own Vote

This has to be a first. During yesterday's Republican caucus in Washington the state party chair decided to forgo counting all the votes and simply declared John McCain the winner. At the time, John McCain led by 1.3% and there was 13% of the vote remaining. Without even looking at the remaining precincts the party chair did some sort of half-ass statistical analysis and decided Mike Huckabee had no chance to win.

Of course the Huckabee campaign wants all the votes to be counted and when they requested that one of their lawyers be present for the recount the state party chair hung up on them. Now I realize that the Republican party is supportive of voter suppression tactics but I never thought they would disenfranchise their own primary voters...

From CBS (H/T - TPM):

Huckabee campaign lawyer Lauren Huckabee (daughter-in-law of the candidate), who is skeptical of the fairness, asked for a lawyer to monitor the results.

The state GOP denied the request and hung up on Lauren Huckabee, according to the campaign. Campaign adviser Ed Rollins will be sending lawyers to Olympia, scheduled to land this evening, to investigate the matter.

At a hastily arranged press conference in a hotel room, Rollins was steamed.

“You don’t get to announce the votes until they are all counted. And obviously, by his attempts to project without any statistical data or even if he had statistical data, it’s irrelevant: we’re entitled to a fair, full count," Rollins said.

"Our lawyers attempted to contact him today, finally did so about ten minutes ago. He said, ‘Well I don’t know where the precincts, are, I just sort of did it. How dare Mike Huckabee challenge – he has to trust us. We’re going to count the rest of the votes today in the office.’"

"We asked to have someone go in to the office with them and count the votes and he refused us."

Senator Kruse Speaks Against Referendums

Today's JG has an article from Niki Kelly about referendums and how they have become a controversial point in this legislative session. I want to point out that referendums are not an affront to representative democracy; when used properly they merely give the people a direct voice in those issues that are most critical to them. The governor gets this difference:

Daniels certainly doesn’t want Indiana to become like California, where voters sometimes have to trudge through 100 pages of ballot initiatives on numerous public policies when they cast a ballot.

“That is not a system I would recommend in Indiana. Most of those things I believe should be taken care of in the people’s house,” he said.

But Daniels believes there are some local decisions that voters should have more direct involvement in, such as building a new school or library.

Of course state Senator Dennis Kruse believes people should NOT have a say outside of the normal voting process.

“I’m a strong proponent of the republic. I do not like the referendums and don’t think we should have them,” he said. “We were elected to make decisions. To me, we are shunning our responsibility when we want to shove it off on public opinion.”

Kruse said it is “dangerous” to have the masses vote on some issues.

“Everyone can’t be informed like elected representatives are. We spend months and months on issues, talking to all the interested parties,” Kruse said. “The regular person can’t do that.”

Here we have yet another elitist telling us he's vastly more informed than us lowly citizens. And the very idea of the citizenry voting on important matters is somehow "dangerous". I mean how could we possibly know whether or not we can afford more taxes or need another school? These decisions are clearly beyond the mental capacity of us plebian lowlifes.

And yet despite all of his hollow objections Kruse still voted for referendums. Was he for them before he was against them? He's also the sponsor of a bill to ban cell phones from automobiles because he got into a wreck while fumbling with his own phone. Perhaps the voters of Auburn will wise up and send this guy packing but until then at least voters can use the referendum to protect us from out-of-touch politicians like Kruse...

Matt Kelty's Motion to Dismiss is Denied

As expected the judge denied Kelty's motion to dismiss - I doubt this was a real shock to anybody. Dan Turkette of Fort Wayne News was in the courthouse and you can read his coverage here.

According to Turkette the trial date was set for Aug 18 in order to give the defense time to appeal the judge's ruling. Seems like a waste of time and money to me - money Kelty surely doesn't have at this point...

There's a New Blog In Town

I'd like to welcome Phil Marx to the Fort Wayne blogosphere. His new blog, My HUD House, will be a collection of stories from his neighborhood told from his perspective. Over the years Phil has had numerous problems with drug dealers and the Fort Wayne Police Department and he has documented them in his own journals. Now Phil will be going back to those journals and retelling the stories for all to read.

Phil's will be a unique voice in the local blogosphere and I look forward to reading his work...

Board of Public Safety Denies Appeal Against Local Blogger

The JG reports that a citizen tried to file an appeal with the Public Safety Board against Fort Wayne Police Department officer, and local photo-blogger, Everett White. The appeal was denied:

Denied a citizen appeal from John Mosley, who alleged that officer Everett White used pepper spray in Mosley’s car outside Piere’s Entertainment Center in November. Mosley complained to an off-duty officer who was working security at the club.

According to the off-duty officer’s report, Mosley and his companion did not appear to be suffering from any effects of the pepper spray. The report also said customers had been known to spray Piere’s staff and other customers.

City Attorney Carol Taylor said she found nothing to support that White had violated the police department’s rules or regulations.

City Council Budget Cut Redux - Part 2

The reason the new council had to retroactively change the budget is because the previous council irresponsibly cut taxes without cutting spending. At the time I felt like this was a decision driven by election year politics and not sound rational judgment. I should point out that I was not the only one at that meeting that felt the council went too far but I did speak out against it so as promised here is the video of my comments after last year's budget hearing

City Council Budget Cut Redux

During tonight's discussion on the property tax increase councilman Glynn Hines rightly pointed out that councilman Pape was a co-author (along with former councilman John Crawford) on the original ordinance to cut the levy. Hines wanted to know why Pape had changed his mind and Pape responded by saying that when the facts changed he had to rethink his position.

The facts never really changed and I personally spoke before council and told them it was fiscally irresponsible to cut the levy without cutting taxes. I'll have video of that as soon as I can, but here's what I wrote at the time:

The proposed tax cut is not followed by an equivalent cut in spending and this is a bad idea - they claim that the difference in revenue and spending would be made up from the city's cash reserves. Unfortunately, the city is facing a mountain of debt and the truth is we don't have any reserves once you take into account the unfunded pensions, combined sewage overflow fixes, etc.

Don't get me wrong, Crawford and Pape should be commended for trying to find ways to reduce spending and taxes. But the fiscally prudent decision would be to match the tax cut with appropriate spending cuts. If this is not done then the city will surely find themselves in a more financially precarious situation in the future...

It sure didn't take too long for me to be proven right. You simply cannot cut taxes without cutting spending - this is Government 101 folks. And Pape shouldn't be the only one singled out here as every member of council voted for the levy cut.

This council meeting was the same one that councilman Tom Hayhurst lashed out at myself and the other citizens that spoke before council and basically said he knew way more about all the issues than we did...

City Council Votes to Increase Property Taxes

(I will get video up tomorrow but for some reason ch 58 was completely scrambled for me tonight - coincidence? heh...)

The main focus of tonight's meeting was to deal with the administration's request to retroactively change the budget passed by the previous council. There was much legal wrangling between council attorney Joe Bonahoom, councilman Tim Pape and city attorney Carol Taylor. The gist of the debate revolved around two issues.

The first issue was whether or not a public hearing would be required to pass the administration's ordinance requesting a tax increase. Unbelievably the administration argued that a public hearing would not be required because they already had one. Now I want to explain this in detail because their argument was nuanced but quite ridiculous as well.

The city was required to have a public hearing for the original budget meeting. This process gives citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the proposed budget, but there's one other part of the process that is very important. Citizens have 10 days after the budget is passed to file their objections and those objections become part of the public record that is sent to the Department of Local Government Finance as the DLGF is ultimately the body responsible for approving the budget passed by council.

So here is the administration's argument in a nutshell. The original public hearing notice had the maximum levy increase included and nobody objected so there's no requirement to hold another public hearing. Now what is absolutely ridiculous about this argument is that they fail to mention that the levy was cut by 4% and that is why nobody objected. Had the council not cut taxes there very well might have been some objections from citizens. It is completely disingenuous for the administration to argue that since citizens didn't object to the 4% levy cut they also wouldn't object to a 4% levy increase - completely illogical. To her credit councilwoman Liz Brown caught the city's bamboozle and called them out on this.

The second issue was whether or not it was legal for the council to pass an ordinance that would retroactively raise taxes. Despite the administration's legal arguments Bonahoom insisted that it would not be legal to do so and went as far to say that he would not sign off on a such an ordinance. Bonahoom suggested the council amend the current ordinance to have the administration request that the Department of Local Government Finance change the levy and he cited specific state statute that gave the city the authority to request this change. Ultimately, with a few minor changes from councilman Pape, the council agreed that this would be the preferred method to take although to the citizenry it doesn't really matter as the net result would be a tax increase no matter how the council approached it.

In the end the council approved the ordinance 7-2 with councilmen Mitch Harper and Tom Smith being the votes against the ordinance. They did all of this without a public hearing or any formal process to get input or objections from the citizens of this city. I believe the DLGF will be required to hold a public hearing so all you have to do is drive down to Indianapolis to be heard...

Editorial on Illegal Republican Caucus

The News Sentinel had a fantastic editorial yesterday about open government and how it relates to the illegal caucus held by the Republican majority on city council. As readers know, a new public advocacy group called Fort Wayne Public 1 has filed a formal complaint with the Indiana Public Access Counselor regarding this caucus. The NS rightly points out our state's open door laws are lacking enforcement mechanisms but they can still be effective at keeping government open and transparent. I've posted an excerpt below but go read the whole thing:

Consider a recent controversy involving Fort Wayne City Council Republicans, who hold a 5-4 majority. They met in a “caucus” this year before a regular council meeting to discuss “recommendations” for appointing council members to certain positions. Council Republicans have been doing this for years, with little attention being paid.

But this year, council Democrats complained, and a new open-government group has filed a complaint with the public access office: When those caucusing also constitute a majority of the legislative body in question, the recommendations in the private meeting become de facto public policy decisions.

The complaint has merit. Whatever the ruling on the letter of the law, the practice certainly violates the spirit of the law.

Without the law, we wouldn't even be talking about this. With it, public awareness is raised, and public opinion can be mobilized. The practice is likely to change, with more open government being the result. Citizens will know more about how their business is being conducted.

That's not too bad for a toothless law.

The need for open government is one idea that all media can agree on...

Budget Smackdown

Regular readers of this blog have probably followed the story of the Henry administration trying to retroactively change the budget and increase property taxes by roughly 4%. They are doing this to try and offset some of the revenue losses that will be generated when the state legislature passes HB1001 or some equivalent - i.e. the governor's bill to cap property taxes at 1% among other things.

Today, councilmen Mitch Harper and Tom Smith held a press conference to give that idea (and the city controller) a public smackdown. You can see the remarks from both Harper and Smith below (again sorry for the shaky video). Before I delve into the politics of this I want to point out that Smith discusses some excellent ideas on how the city could go about using citizen input to help control government costs. The rest of the council and the administration would be wise to at least follow up on his ideas.





I expect this issue to get some discussion and debate at tomorrow's council meeting but why hold a press conference? Well, the Republican councilmembers haven't gotten the best press lately and this is probably a way for them to try and turn the tables a little bit and show the Democrats, including the administration, that they are willing to play politics if that's what it takes. In other words, this is probably a little retribution for Pape leading the charge against the illegal caucus held by the Republican majority.

I'm not suggesting that what Harper and Smith were talking about isn't substantive - it is. I'm merely pointing out that there's more than meets the eye regarding this press conference. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in tomorrow's council meeting...

Councilmen Speak Against Proposed Tax Increase

As mentioned in Ben Lanka's story in this morning's JG, councilmen Mitch Harper and Tom Smith held a press conference to discuss their objections towards the mayor's request to increase property taxes. Both councilmen questioned the legality of retroactively changing the budget as requested by the city controller. You can read the full press release here.

I will have video of the press conference up later tonight or early tomorrow but I wanted to touch on one specific part of their press conference that I found particularly troubling. During his remarks Harper mentioned that the administration had wanted to move forward on this proposed tax increase without a public hearing. Frankly, I was somewhat surprised by this and so I asked councilman Harper if he would elaborate on that point. (Apologies for the shaky video, I didn't have a tripod)



You can read the letter to the city controller that Harper mentions in the video here

It's certainly unusual for a new administration to try and retroactively change the budget after a new council is elected, but to do so without a public hearing or a formal opportunity for the public to speak for or against the idea is an outrage. I have to think this is the work of mayor Richard's holdovers.

Just because they can make a legal argument for such action doesn't make it the right course of action to take. Mayor Henry showed a propensity towards open government when he hired a second public information officer but he needs to reign in his entire staff and make it clear that this is not how the city will do business.

More to come...

Michael Israel Heroes and Icons Tour

On Saturday, February 9th at 7:30 PM, famed international artist Michael Israel will perform a live ART IN CONCERT show at the Scottish Rite Auditorium. Following the show, a live auction of the artist's work will be held to raise funds for the Indiana Burn Council and the Public Safety Foundation of Northeast Indiana. Please click the following graphic to visit the website for this event for further details:

Firearm Restrictions

The JG has an editorial on Saturday where they discuss the need to "close the gun show loophole". Here's what the JG says:

But because background checks don’t apply to many sellers at gun shows, dangerous criminals use the loophole to get their hands on guns.

The bill requires background checks for guns sold at gun shows, flea markets or swap meets. Completing the checks will make it harder for violent criminals, domestic-violence perpetrators and severely mentally ill people to buy guns at the local gun show.

Any private citizen can sell one of their guns to any other private citizen without a background check and it doesn't matter if they're at a gun show or not. All licensed dealers are required to do background checks no matter where they sell the firearm; it doesn't matter if it's their store or a gun show. Using the term "loophole" implies that private sellers are somehow skirting the law or exploiting a poorly written section of the law but this is not the case as private sellers are simply following the law as it was intended to work. Keep in mind that private sellers will still be able to sell guns without a background check - just not at a gun show.

The proposal would make it more difficult for criminals to get guns and yet, at the same time, do nothing to keep law-abiding citizens without histories of criminal activity or mental illness from having legal access to firearms.

Here's a scary thought - who decides what a "mental illness" is? That's the part gun control advocates don't want to talk about. Of course some cases are cut and dry but most aren't. Soldiers returning from battle that are diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? They'll probably be on the list despite the fact the we let them defend this country while using weaponry more sophisticated than the simple handgun in situations significantly more hostile than you'll find in your local neighborhood.

Supporters of the law claim you can petition to get your named removed, want to take a gander at how difficult that process is going to be? What this law would do is actually discourage people from seeking help from mental health professionals for fear the government would strip them of their constitutional right to bear arms. To recap this legislation:

1. Won't keep criminals from obtaining guns


2. Doesn't stop private sellers from selling guns without a background check - only at gun shows will they be required to do this


3. Will discourage people from seeking mental help

This is a pointless bill that will undoubtedly have more unintended consequences than beneficial ones...

Post of the Day

From Josh Marshall :

The Rudy Story
Over $50 million for a single delegate.

As the LA Times notes, that's the worst dollar for delegate record in American presidential history. The previous winner was John Connally who spent $11 million for a single delegate in 1980.

And at that rate Rudy would have needed $60 billion to win the nomination

I have never seen a more inept campaign at any level than the one Giuliani put forward. I would want my damn money back...

Just Say No to Two Way Streets

The JG penned an editorial yesterday supporting the mayor's request for converting Berry and Wayne into two way streets. The JG goes even further by suggesting the city council should try and restart the work to make Calhoun a two way street.

Mayor Tom Henry is right to ask the City Council to reconsider converting several downtown streets to allow two-way traffic. Examining ways to improve downtown traffic patterns is prudent given the flourishing development downtown.

Henry wants the council to revisit converting Wayne Street to two-way traffic between Van Buren and Clay streets, as well as Berry Street from Clay Street to Broadway.

The priority for city leaders, however, should be converting the one-way section of Calhoun Street. Council members last year approved making Calhoun a two-way street between Washington Boulevard and Berry Street, but that plan was ditched because the cost of converting it proved to be higher than expected. The project was expected to cost $2.4 million, but the lowest bid for the project was 3 percent higher than the estimate.

Calhoun is the most pedestrian friendly street in all of downtown - especially between Berry & Wayne. The city, and the JG, wants to screw that up by widening it which would certainly cause some of the trees to go away and also put parking along one side of the street. And why? Because their other decisions to build buildings across major streets have screwed up things so badly they don't think they have a choice. Notice a pattern here?

As for making Berry and Wayne two way streets - where will the money come from? We're facing a $10 Million shortfall due to HB1001 and this type of project is certainly not necessary - something councilman Smith has rightly pointed out. Evidently the JG isn't concerned about that:

In 2006, the council defeated a request to convert Berry and Wayne streets downtown from one-way to two-way in a vote that split according to party affiliation. Republicans were looking at the costs then. Since then, the Harrison Square development has begun, creating a need to re-examine downtown traffic patterns, and four council members have been replaced.

The part they left out is that cost control is even more important now than it was then. In fact it's going to be quite interesting to watch the administration go before council and request money for a "nice-to-have" project right after the controller was saying we needed to raise taxes to help offset the looming budget shortfalls...

Godwin's Law Invoked

There was a letter to the editor in today's JG where an opponent of the smoking ban compared the JG and ban supporters to Nazi's:

The Journal Gazette published several articles regarding smoking the week of Jan. 13. This concentrated blitz is surely an effort to influence the City Council as it prepares to consider modifying that oppressive piece of legislation commonly known as the smoking ban.

Now, the smoke Nazis are encouraging people to inform on their fellow citizens. They have even come up with a special 311 number to make the process easier, and they have enlisted the pledge of the police department and fire department to enforce their edict.

This whole debacle reeks of the same tactics that got the Third Reich started, i.e.: unreasonable laws, people informing on each other, businesses going broke, people out of jobs and so forth. For those too young to remember, maybe the words “Adolf Hitler” and “Nazi Germany” will have meaning.

The words Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany certainly do lose their meaning when applied inappropriately to analogies like the smoking ban. In fact it's actually quite offensive to many people that truly suffered at the hands of the Nazi regime.

So I'm invoking Godwin's Law on the author of this letter and letting him know that he has automatically lost the debate. Rules are rules...

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.