SIGTARP ALERTED TREASURY THAT THE  TARP’s HAREST HIT FUND IS BEING ABUSED IN INDIANA

“Last month, SIGTARP alerted UNITED STATES TREASURY that the TARP’s Hardest Hit Fund (HHF) was being abused in Indiana by funding the demolition of lived-in homes, instead of abandoned houses.”

PLEASE SEE link of this report posted below.  Refer to pages 41-51 of this report.  

https://www.sigtarp.gov/Quaryrtly%20Reports/January 28 2016Report to Congress.pdf

BELOW IS AN EXCERPT OF THE REPORT SEENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS IN DECEMBER, 2015

RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO TARP-FUNDED DEMOLITIONS OF LIVED-IN HOMES

On December 14, 2015, SIGTARP issued a letter alerting Treasury to SIGTARP’S finding that HHF Indiana selected and approved for TARP-funded demolition 18 homes where people lived, rather than the vacant and abandoned houses (so-called zombie properties) that Treasury intended.

These homes were chosen for demolition under HHF because they were on the desired relocation site of a car dealership in Evansville, Indiana. SIGTARP made three recommendations:

A)  Treasury should immediately direct state housing finance agencies that they should not allow the Hardest Hit Fund to be used strategically to select

B)  Lived-in residences for demolition, and should instead be used solely to select zombie properties for demolition.

Todays “Readers Poll” question is “Do You Believe DMD Director Kelley Coures Assertions That The Feds Are Not Doing An Investigation But An Audit of TARP Funds”?

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE CITY-COUNTY OBSERVER

BY LAURA BLACKBURN

Friday, January 29, 2016 was a busy day for me, and it would have been easy to skip the “public” board meeting of Evansville Brownfields. I showed up, though, because I was becoming more and more suspicious of the not-for-profit group’s stewardship of public money. To be very honest, it sort of seemed to me that the City-County Observer’s public questioning of Brownfields’ dealings was going nowhere, especially after it was reported that the group would meet in a closed executive session before opening their meeting to the public. In the end, I decided to go and think of it as a learning experience.

It was, indeed, a learning experience. It began when I approached the security desk of the very impressive offices. I asked directions to the Ellerbrook Room, and was asked my name. I gave it, and a list was checked, which I was obviously not on. The uniformed officer behind the desk was cordial, and added my name to the list and directed me to the room. She noted that there were a lot of people present not included on the list. That was the most warmth I felt during my time at Vectren. I was one of six citizens present to see firsthand what would be done. The executive session was attended by City Councilmen Mosby, Weaver, and Hargis in addition to DMD Director Coures, his employee who serves as Brownfields coordinator, Carolyn Rusk, and the board members. The presence of the City Councilors was not explained, but it seemed strange to me that the board could meet with them present, but not other non-members of the board.

To make a short story shorter, the public session was conducted at a frenetic pace. Those conducting the meeting talked faster than some auctioneers I have heard, and votes were unanimous. There was little to no discussion on any of the business presented. There was a lot of “basic housekeeping” done, but there were some topics that I think deserve to be mentioned here. It was decided that Brownfields hold the bonds for the parking garage for the Health Education building and hotel, with the assurance that the lease payments from the City will be equal to the bond payment. The change in by-laws to accommodate land banking were tabled until a meeting “on or around the 1st of March.

The public who showed up at the meeting were only informally acknowledged by Brad Ellsworth when he opened the doors to us. There was no recognition of our presence by the rest of the board and no agendas were available. Absolutely NO opportunity to ask questions or make comments was afforded to those present.

I left the sham “opened public meeting” with a bad taste in my mouth for the City Councilmen involved, too. My expectations for Ms. Mosby and Mr. Weaver are never very high, so I am not surprised at them. I had held high hopes for Mrs. Hargis, though. She seemed to be really devoted to transparency and good public policy when she was running for office. Less than a month into her term, she has twice been a disappointment to me. Her behavior at the first Council meeting toward Rev. Adrian Brooks and his supporters was rude, and now she participated in this travesty. She bears watching, as it appears she may be easily led down the path of least resistance instead of standing for good public policy.

EDITOR FOOTNOTE: THIS LETTER WAS POSTED WITHOUT OPINION, BIAS OR EDITING.

Todays “Readers Poll” question is “Do You Believe DMD Director Kelley Coures Assertions That The Feds Are Not Doing An Investigation But An Audit of TARP Funds”?

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

NOTICE FROM IHCDA BLIGHT ELIMINATION PROGRAM

Attached below is a link we know you will find extremely interesting.  The link was sent to us by one of our Indy “MOLES” who have been following the issue of the Evansville DMD TARP program and the investigation conducted by Special Agents of the Investigations Division of the Office of the Special Inspector General For The Troubled Asset Relief Program.

It looks like the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority has made a quick policy change concerning the property qualifications pertain to the Blight Elimination Program in Evansville and rest of Indiana.

DOC105

Todays “Readers Poll” question is “Do You Believe DMD Director Kelley Coures Assertions That The Feds Are Not Doing An Investigation But An Audit of TARP Funds”?

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

Doctors’ Affidavits Cannot Defeat Summary Judgment
By Jennifer Nelson

The affidavits submitted as evidence by the treating physicians being sued for medical malpractice were factually inadequate and did not raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding their care of the plaintiff, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Monday.

Julia and Steven Roberts filed a medical malpractice complaint against Drs. Kevin Scripture, Richard Mangan, Judy Risch and Whitewater Eye Centers LLC regarding care and treatment Julia Roberts received on her left eye, leading to a corneal transplant. The medical review panel unanimously found the doctors failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care and that their conduct was a factor of the resultant damages.

The Robertses then sued and sought summary judgment. The defendant doctors’ responses to the summary judgment motion contained medical-expert testimony from each of the doctors, which simply set for their medical credentials and stated the care and treatment provided by each doctor met the applicable standard of care and was not responsible for her alleged injuries or damages.

Eighty one days later, the doctors filed a motion to supplement their affidavits with more factual information about case and treatment of Julia Roberts. The trial court denied the doctors’ motion and granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in Kevin T. Scripture, M.D., Richard Mangan, O.D., Judy D. Risch, O.D., and Whitewater Eye Centers, LLC v. Julia and Steven Roberts, 49A02-1504-CT-211, finding the doctors’ affidavits did not set for specific facts regarding Julia Roberts’ care, but instead, echoed the denials of their pleading contrary to the requirements of Ind. Trial Rule 56(E), Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote.

The doctors cited the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1002 (Ind. 2014), to support their argument their affidavits – even if self-serving and conclusory – can defeat summary judgment.

“Unlike in Hughley, however, here the Doctors cited no facts that would support that they met the standard of care or that their conduct did not cause the Robertses’ damages. The Doctors merely restated the denials in their pleadings. Hughley is inapposite,” Vaidik wrote.

The COA also affirmed the denial to supplement, noting that Trial Rule 56(C) provides that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment has 30 days to serve a response or any other opposing affidavits, and in this case, the doctors did not file their supplemental affidavits until 81 days later.