WHATS ON YOUR MIND TODAY?

Todays READERS POLL question is: Are you getting sick and tired of our elected and appointed City officials playing political games with our hard earn tax dollars?

Please take time and read our newest feature articles entitled “BIRTHDAYS, HOT JOBS” and “LOCAL SPORTS” posted in our sections.

If you would like to advertise in the CCO please contact us City-County Observer@live.com.

City County Observer has been serving our community for 15 years.

Copyright 2015 City County Observer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistribute.

Indianapolis – First Lady Karen Pence today announced she is hosting a phone drive with HopeLine from Verizon throughout the month of October to assist survivors of domestic violence in Indiana. This is the third year the First Lady has participated in the initiative and, according to Verizon, the drive is considered to be one of the largest consecutive HopeLine collections in the nation.

“HopeLine from Verizon is an incredible program, and I trust that these donations over the next month will make a noticeable difference for survivors of domestic violence across the state,” said First Lady Karen Pence. “I am very grateful for the efforts of state employees. Last year they dropped off 1,367 phones in HopeLine boxes around the government center campus. I am looking forward to watching our progress throughout the month of October as we continue to work together to make a difference and bring awareness to domestic violence.”

The phone drive, launched in conjunction with domestic violence awareness month, will collect no-longer-used cell phones and accessories from any provider for survivors of domestic violence. HopeLine provides new phones equipped with 3,000 anytime minutes to those in need through participating domestic violence agencies, and give grants to agencies that assist survivors of domestic violence. The donated phones are refurbished and recycled in an environmentally safe way with proceeds going towards the financial support of domestic violence awareness and prevention initiatives.

Since 2001, HopeLine from Verizon has collected more than 11.4 million phones nationwide and has donated more than $29 million in cash grants to domestic violence organizations nationwide.

“First Lady Karen Pence’s drives are one of the most successful drives in the nation and engages thousands of people at a single time,” said John Granby, Verizon Great Lakes market president. “The commitment of our partners makes it possible to support community organizations that are on the front line assisting survivors and their families.”

Donation boxes will be located among Indiana’s state agencies as well as in the Indiana Statehouse outside the Office of the First Lady, Room 215, and the Office of the Governor, Room 206. Steps on how to donate phones through HopeLine from Verizon can be found attached, and photos from the event can be found below.

###

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) today announced a settlement with Southern Coal Corporation and 26 affiliated mining companies that requires the companies to make comprehensive upgrades to their coal mining and processing operations to prevent discharges of polluted wastewater from their mines in Appalachia. The estimated cost of these measures is $5 million.

The settlement also requires the establishment of a $4.5 million letter of credit and a standby trust that will guarantee sufficient funding for, and a mechanism to accomplish, compliance with the Clean Water Act and the work the companies have agreed to perform under the settlement, should the companies fail to do so. The companies will also pay a $900,000 civil penalty, divided among the federal government and the four state co-plaintiffs, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia.

The settlement resolves alleged violations of state-issued Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits by illegally discharging various pollutants at the companies’ mining and processing operations in Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia and violations of the companies’ legal responsibilities to sample the quality of their discharges to rivers and streams. The estimated annual pollutant reductions through implementation of the settlement is approximately five million pounds.

“Discharging pollution from coal mining into waterways is a serious threat to clean water, and that’s why EPA stepped in on behalf of communities across Appalachia,” said Assistant Administrator Cynthia Giles for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “Company-wide compliance programs like the one Southern Coal Corporation will establish are critical to protecting our lakes, rivers and streams and the people who depend on them.”

“This settlement is designed to bring the companies into compliance with the Clean Water Act and requires actions that should prevent future violations,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Cruden for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “We appreciate our state partners working with us on the consent decree and for their joint oversight efforts with us in the future.”

Under the settlement, Southern Coal Corporation and its affiliated mining companies must implement a series of measures to ensure compliance and prevent future Clean Water Act violations at their coal mining operations, including:

* Implementing a company-wide, EPA-approved environmental management system.

* Maintaining a centralized data management system to track audit results, violations, water sampling data and compliance efforts.

* Constructing a public website for posting documents such as NPDES permits, discharge monitoring reports, water sampling data, effluent violation information, notices of violations and compliance orders.

* Conducting regular internal and independent third-party environmental audits and outlet inspections and undertaking necessary alterations or maintenance measures.

* Providing training for all employees whose responsibilities include environmental compliance and contractors hired to perform duties required by the consent decree.

* Paying a civil penalty of $900,000.

* Paying escalating stipulated penalties if Clean Water Act permit violations continue to occur.

* Providing for a letter of credit and a standby trust and trustee to ensure that there is sufficient money and a mechanism to achieve compliance with the consent decree and the Clean Water Act, if the companies fail to perform.

The government complaint filed concurrently with the settlement alleged that over the last five years, Southern Coal Corporation mining and processing operations have violated discharge limits for pollutants including iron, total suspended solids, aluminum, pH and manganese in their state-issued permits. The complaint also alleged that Southern Coal Corporation failed to submit complete and timely discharge monitoring reports, made unauthorized discharges and failed to respond to EPA requests for information.  EPA discovered the violations through investigations and inspections of several Southern Coal Corporation mining operations, reviewing various information provided by the companies and coordinating with the affected state governments.

Created in 1972 by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program addresses water pollution by authorizing states, with EPA oversight, to issue permits that set strict limits for the discharge of certain types of pollutants by certain types of entities. The proposed consent decree, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, is subject to a 30-day public comment period and approval by the federal court.  Information about submitting a public comment is available at: www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees

Posey County Man’s Convictions For rape, Confinement Of Woman Affirmed

Jennifer Nelson for www.theindianalawyer.com

The past drug use of the woman who was held against her will for nearly two months and repeatedly raped was not relevant to the criminal trial of the man who abducted her, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

Ricky R. House Jr. offered a ride to J.L., who knew House and his girlfriend Kendra Tooley because she had worked with Tooley. J.L. was living in a shelter at the time, and instead of taking her back by curfew, House used chloroform to render her unconscious and then tied her up. Over the next 58 days, she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by House. The couple made her wear a dog collar and often kept her locked in a cage.

She wasn’t freed until Tooley’s ex-husband came to the trailer where J.L. was held captive and took her back to his apartment.

House was charged with 16 counts and convicted as charged. The trial court vacated some verdicts, leaving in place three convictions of Level 1 felony rape, two counts of Level 5 felony criminal confinement, and one count each of Level 5 felony kidnapping, Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury and Class A misdemeanor pointing a firearm. He received an aggregate 93-year sentence.

At trial, the state filed a motion in limine to prevent House from presenting any evidence of prior drug or alcohol use by the state’s witnesses, to which House did not object. At the trial, J.L. testified of her drug use during captivity and mentioned that she had used methamphetamine before. House did not seek to introduce evidence concerning J.L.’s prior drug usage during her testimony.

On appeal, House maintained he should have been able to admit evidence of J.L.’s prior drug use because the addiction evidence supported his claim that her usage and thus other conduct, was voluntary while at the trailer.

Judge Michael Barnes noted that House waived the issue, but even if he did not, the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion by excluding the evidence. The Indiana Supreme Court has consistently upheld decisions excluding evidence of a witness’s past drug use as irrelevant.

“Here, J.L. testified regarding her drug usage during the time of her captivity. There is no indication that her prior drug usage was so extensive as to impair her mind. Further, it is not relevant as to whether J.L. was held against her will and repeatedly sexually assaulted. We agree with the State that admission of this evidence was an ‘attempt to smear the victim’s character by labeling her as a drug addict who was willing to abandon her family and submit to degrading and humiliating sexual assaults and to be treated like an animal so long as she received methamphetamine,’” Barnes wrote.

Even if the trial court had erred in excluding the evidence, it was harmless, he noted, because J.L. testified that she had used meth in the past, so the jury was aware of her prior drug usage.

The case is Ricky R. House, Jr. v. State of Indiana, 65A01-1511-CR-1979.

By Peter Funt

As a syndicated newspaper columnist, a Clinton supporter, and one who teaches journalism to high school students, I was taken aback by reaction to —- and pigeonholing of —- my criticism of moderator Lester Holt in the first presidential debate.

I concluded that Hillary Clinton bested Donald Trump but Holt stumbled as questioner. That these points were widely viewed in the days that followed as mutually exclusive elevates my concerns about polarization in politics and media.

My analysis showed that Holt asked a total of 14 questions (plus a few interjections and short follow-ups). Of those, seven were generic, policy-based inquiries, asked of both candidates. Six were specifically directed at Trump, regarding things he has said and done. Only one such personal question —- and a gentle one at that —- was asked of Clinton.

Evaluated strictly as journalism, that’s clearly unfair.

Yet, pundits favoring Clinton could not bring themselves to fault Holt, seeming to fear that any criticism of the moderator would disrupt the narrative that Clinton did a superior job. Those backing Trump, on the other hand, soon seized on Holt’s questions as the be all and end all for Trump’s lackluster performance.

By mid-week there were conspiracy theories about a “rigged” debate. Some at the fringe right suggested that Clinton was signaling Holt about when to challenge Trump. Newt Gingrich cited “rumors” that Clinton obtained the questions in advance. That’s utter nonsense —- if for no other reason than she received only straightforward, generic questions that she’s been addressing for months.

As I noted, Holt had to make several key structural decisions. Would the questions be generic and policy based? (How to create jobs, how to combat cyber attacks, etc.) Or, would they follow more of an interview style? (Why won’t you release your tax returns?)

The challenge for Holt was that Donald Trump’s unprincipled and often distorted rhetoric over the course of the campaign practically screamed out for journalistic intervention. So Holt crafted his six personal shots —- from Trump’s tax returns, to his “birther” claims, all the way to his bizarre assertion that Clinton lacks the presidential “look.”

Deftly, Holt slipped these questions into discussion of broader topics, making them seem more spontaneous. The generic tax question, for example, took Holt to Trump’s personal returns. The generic “racial healing” question led to the birther query.

Trump’s supporters have reason to ask why no such interview questions were put to Clinton —- about Benghazi, about the Clinton Foundation, or about her “basket of deplorables” remark, to name but a few. The lone personal question asked of her by Holt was a softball, based on something she said recently: “Do you believe that police are implicitly biased against black people?”

How the respected anchorman managed to fumble as he did is not particularly mysterious. Following sharp criticism of his NBC colleague Matt Lauer in the so-called “Commander-in-Chief” one-on-one, where Lauer challenged Clinton repeatedly while allowing Trump to get away with distortions, Holt was determined to be different.

Following the debate, Margret Sullivan of The Washington Post, herself a journalism teacher and media critic, gave Holt a “B-minus.” But her primary criticism was that Holt should have been more “hands on,” which really doesn’t get to the nub of his journalistic failure.

Had Holt stuck to generic policy questions —- leaving the candidates to make personal attacks if they thought it wise —- the result would have been a more informative debate. Holt still could have made appropriate interruptions when facts were in dispute.

This has been the most divisive and troubling presidential campaign in memory, so perhaps a split vote regarding the moderator should be no surprise.

I don’t think Lester Holt demonstrated bias, I believe he succumbed to pressure from his peers. I don’t think his performance significantly affected the outcome, but it was a distraction.

Is that so hard to see? Or is it just too inconvenient to accept?