Rather than take a 3.5 hour meeting into 4 hours, I have opted to release a statement regarding my vote on the 2013 budget. I voted against the 2013 budget for the following reasons:

1. The 2013 budget proposed by the Administration is financially irresponsible and short-sighted. With less money next year from Aztar, the need to find $10 million dollars for a downtown hotel, and only $3 million in the rainy day fund, a $3 to $5 million dollar cushion between revenue and expenditures is not enough. The Ford Center and Centre are operating at losses and the downtown TIF and food and beverage tax revenues are not producing enough money to cover the loans we took out to build them. We are having to use Aztar funds, which are normally used for capital projects such as police cars, to make up the difference. It’s difficult to imagine how we are going to borrow an additional $10 million next year to incentivize the building of the downtown hotel. With the Centre not being paid off until 2015, this bloated budget will most likely stall hotel construction until 2015 or later. The local economy needs the hotel project. If we could have saved $10 million in the 2013 budget, we could be building the downtown hotel next year without borrowing any money. Money for Keep Evansville Beautiful, Leadership Evansville and other unnecessary expenditures such as increasing the flower budget for the Parks Department have led to a budget that reads more like a child’s Christmas wish list.

2. What was believed to be the final budget was not emailed to City Council until October 19th, however it was adjusted yet again when we arrived to vote. The budget is approximately 200 pages long and somewhat incomprehensible. It is full of abbreviations that are nonsensical and has literally hundreds of thousands of dollars buried in categories labeled “contractual services” and “miscellaneous.” It is not in a format that is user friendly, and it is nearly impossible to decipher. It is unacceptable that the final budget is not provided in a user friendly format with enough time to actually go through it. The entire schedule for reviewing and voting on the budget should be started much earlier so that City Council is not essentially forced to vote a mere days before the deadline.

3. The budget contains nearly $1 million dollars for the destruction of Roberts Stadium. Three years ago, Roberts Stadium was a profitable venue for the City. However, it was systematically attacked and the public misled as to its condition. A refusal to maintenance the building, a financing agreement for the Ford Center that required the removal of all of its seating, and an auction that sold the fixtures for pennies on the dollar has forced the destruction of a landmark in this community. City Council was misled at its last meeting as to the cost to mothball the building. We were told that it was $25 to $30 thousand dollars a month to maintain the building. The records revealed otherwise. In its most expensive month last year (January), water, telephone, pump monitoring, gas and electric was approximately $14 thousand. An average cost to mothball the stadium would be approximately $10 thousand a month. We are destroying a perfectly good building, that is paid for, due to a complete lack of creativity.

4. As of the time of the vote on the 2013 budget, the major accounts of the City were not reconciled. Although it is doubtful that reconciliation would create major changes in balances, it is irresponsible to vote for a budget without certainty as to the funds.

5. The 2013 budget contains unreasonable raises for a select few employees.

6. The Fire Fighters are still in negotiations for a contract. It is not appropriate to vote on a budget where the end result of the negotiations, and therefore the final cost, is not known.

I am available for questions at 812-499-3384

Stephanie Brinkerhoff Riley

Excerpts:

“Behold the Obama Administration’s new public works plan. Sue cities for polluting waterways and then as part of a settlement require them to spend, er, “invest” billions in extraneous sewer improvements. The White House doesn’t even need legislation to pour this money down the drain.”

“The Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency have taken enforcement actions against 25 cities over the last four years for allegedly violating the Clean Water Act, and there are another 772 on their list.”

“The EPA says this extraordinary intrusion on local sovereignty is justified because cities are discharging waste into waterways during heavy rains.”

“The U.S. Conference of Mayors says the EPA’s heavy-handed management can’t be justified by the supposed environmental or economic benefits.”

“Fossil fuel CEOs couldn’t have said it better.”

“Since cities don’t have that much spare change, they’ve been making improvements incrementally. But the EPA is demanding that they accelerate their work, which means they’ll have to issue bonds as well as raise residents’ water and sewer rates. David Berger, the Democratic mayor of Lima, Ohio—which has a median household income of $26,000—told Congress this summer that the EPA’s consent decree could raise the average resident’s $333 annual sewer bill by $539. Call the surcharge the Obama storm tax.”

“New York City’s deputy mayor for operations Cas Holloway is less charitable. The EPA, he wrote in “The Environmental Forum” journal this month, is “treating cities as it might have treated Standard Oil early last century.” The agency is “imposing billions of dollars of unfunded mandates without a clear scientific and public health basis for doing so.”

Perhaps by targeting cities the EPA is merely trying to show that it’s an equal opportunity harassing regulator. To adapt one of the President’s favorite phrases, everyone deserves a fair shakedown.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444799904578052673425236066.html

Throughout my campaign for judge, I have questioned the efficiency of the current Juvenile-Probate division of the Vanderburgh Superior Court. I will continue to do so. Under its current leadership, the court has become so inefficient, that it has become ineffective. For over three decades, the Superior Court maintained a well defined structure with “Paternity” cases being filed and resolved in the Juvenile division. These cases generally involve a single parent attempting to obtain child support or hoping to receive parenting time with their child. Emergency paternity hearings were being set up to 8 months in the future after being filed. For example, under Judge Niemeier’s system, if a parent were to file a paternity action to get parenting time with a 5 month old child, the parent would not likely set foot in the Juvenile Court until after the child’s 1st birthday. That’s unacceptable and yes, inefficient.

Paternity filings began to noticeably increase in 2008 and they quickly became backlogged due to the fact that Judge Niemeier refuses to hear paternity cases. This is not a new problem. Prior to the “Reorganization” of the Superior Court on September 1, 2012, paternity cases represented approximately 1/3 of this Superior Court division’s total case load. Not until I challenged my opponent for re-election to a third term, did Judge Niemeier feel compelled to act. Does making the first comprehensive change to Superior Court in 30 years just 8 weeks before the election seem coincidental? I’ll leave that up to the voters to decide. Regardless, I commend the other Superior judges for stepping in and picking up the slack.

I am running for judge because I want the opportunity to make a difference in our community. I’ve witnessed the current Juvenile Court system firsthand, and it’s in trouble. As an Evansville native and father to 2 young children, I have a vested interest in not only their safety and security, but of your children and grandchildren as well. I am not part of the establishment. I am not running as the attorney’s judge. I am not running for endorsements and awards. I am running as a new kind of people’s judge.

FOOT NOTE: POSTED WITHOUT OPINION, BIAS OR EDITING.

The City County Observer is pleased to honor Evansville City Councilwoman from the 3rd Ward Stephanie Brinkerhoff-Riley with a MOLE AWARD for 2012. Brinkerhoff-Riley’s courage and diligence in vetting contributed significantly to save the taxpayers of Evansville at least $4.8 Million by stopping the Earthcare Energy deal in its tracks. After the City Council approved this deal in a controversial 5 – 4 vote Stephanie expended hundreds of hours of personal effort to vet the concept and the management team. Eventually an opportunity to terminate the agreement was seized upon by the Winnecke Administration and as they say, the rest is history. For this exceptional effort the CCO has chosen Councilwoman Riley as one of only 5 recipients of this year’s Mole Award.

Stephanie Brinkerhoff Riley was born in Danville, Illinois in 1972. Her father was a union Boilermaker and farmer, and her mother a housewife. She moved with her family moved to Newburgh, Indiana in 1988, and graduated with honors from Castle High School. Stephanie went on to the University of Evansville and worked full-time to supplement her scholarships to pay her own expenses. Stephanie was the first person in her family to graduate from college.

She finished cum laude in 1996 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Administration and a minor in Political Science. She went on to put herself through law school at Indiana University Mauer School of Law in Bloomington. Graduating in 1999, Stephanie went to work as a business agent for the United Steelworkers of America, and was a third generation union member. After three years with the Union, she went on to work for a union-side labor law firm in Chicago.

The call of home tugged on Stephanie’s heartstrings so considering the Evansville area home, she returned to start her own law practice. Brinkerhoff-Riley, LLC was born in January of 2004, and Stephanie limited her practice to family law, criminal law and employment discrimination. In late 2006, she merged her practice with Gerling Law Offices.

Stephanie continued her training and became a registered Domestic Relations Mediator, an advocate of collaborative divorce and one of four Certified Family Law Specialists in southwestern Indiana.

From 2004 to 2011, Stephanie became very involved in the Evansville community, serving as the Chairman of the Family Law Section of the Evansville Bar Association, joining the Board of Directors of both the YWCA and the Jacobsville Area Community Corporation, serving as a Precinct Committeeperson and the Third Ward Leader for the Democrat Party, and as a mentor through the YWCA Live Y’ers Program. She also volunteered as the defense attorney in the Juvenile Court CHINS Drug Court, became President of the Vanderburgh County Democrat Club, was invited and attended Leadership Evansville, and won numerous awards for her pro bono legal work.

Her community involvement culminated in a run for the Third Ward City Council Seat in 2011. After winning the election and wanting to devote significant time to the position, Stephanie left Gerling and re-established her own firm. She now owns and runs Brinkerhoff -Riley, P.C., where her practice is limited to family law litigation.

Stephanie is married to Bradley Riley, a Tool & Die Maker and the Machine Shop Supervisor at Evana Automation. They have three sons and a daughter: Ty is a 21 year old college student at the University of Southern Indiana, Cole is a senior at North high school, and the twins, Zoe and Beck, are 30 months old.

From humble beginnings, Stephanie has largely created her own destiny. She backs down from nothing and is absolutely committed to making Evansville a better place to live. Staunchly independent, she is not afraid to take on both parties at the same time if need be. She’s smart, responsive to the voters, and capable of being Mayor someday.

Once again I feel compelled to respond to my opponent’s claims. While I have read post after post by supporters from each side, I have tried to stay above all of the petty gamesmanship. Unfortunately, when my opponent crosses the line and distorts my record and insults my staff I feel obliged to let the people of this county know the truth. In his last article, Mr. Blackard claims that “as many as 1000 cases have been stripped” from Juvenile Court due my inefficient system. This simply is not true.
Mr. Blackard should quit trying to be cute with his words, which mislead the public. Our race is not for a federal office, it is for a local judgeship. Attorneys and the fine people who work in the Civic Center know the truth of the Court`s recent restructuring. After having the same rotation system in place in Superior Court for over 30 years, and after a year of planning, the seven Superior Court judges instituted a change by having Judge Pigman handle major felonies, Judge Trockman handle drug cases, and the Judge Lloyd, D`Amour, Tornatta, and Kiely handle a new family law division which includes paternity cases. This new restructuring allows some of the judges to specialize and allows me and my staff more time to concentrate on children who have been abused and neglected. These neglect cases have almost quadrupled over the last ten years, due to the meth epidemic.
Juvenile Court was not “stripped” of 1000 cases. My court and staff were not being inefficient. Mr. Blackard`s comments are just political “spin” .The decision to restructure all of Superior Court was done to help our community. At our last forum in front of the Rotary, Mr. Blackard claimed he will take back these 1000 paternity cases into Juvenile Court where they belong. This would be a colossal mistake.
The new family division is working terrifically. By evenly distributing Superior Court`s workload over all of the judges the community is better served. The abused children cases are and should remain Juvenile Court`s number one priority. Anyone reading Mr. Blackard`s comments would think that cases were removed against my will, due to my lack of efficiency. He deliberately tried to make the public think something which is absolutely false.
Since I am responding to political “spin”, I might as well respond to another recent accusation of my opponent. I had originally ignored the controversy when Mr. Blackard implied that my campaign was destroying signs and it was my duty to put a stop to it. Let me make this perfectly clear, neither I nor my supporters are destroying signs. All of us candidates have had a lot of signs stolen and destroyed, but yet none of us went to the public accusing our opponents. Unfortunately, signs being destroyed are part of every campaign. I wish the police would catch one of the juveniles who are probably doing it to all of us. It would make my day. To accuse people of wrong doing without any facts is simply wrong. As a defense attorney who represents people charged with crimes, Mr. Blackard should know better than to make baseless claims. Quite frankly, I am getting tired of having my reputation smeared without one ounce of truth behind the claims. For over 20 years I have represented this county as a prosecutor and now as Judge and nobody has ever questioned my integrity and work ethic. It is sad that Mr. Blackard has resorted to this type of campaign.

FOOT NOTE: POSTED WITHOUT OPINION, BIAS OR EDITING.

VANDERBURGH COUNTY FELONY CHARGES

This feature is sponsored by Chris Walsh For Vanderburgh County Clerk. Chris Walsh is a veteran county administrator that strongly supports our local law enforcement professionals . Chris Walsh is a candidate that possess a non-partisan attitude with a consumer friendly demeanor. Chris also stands against unification of city and county governments.
This ad paid for by the committiee to elect Walsh Clerk.

Evansville, IN – Below is a list of felony cases that were filed by the Vanderburgh County Prosecutor’s Office on Friday, October 19, 2012.

Elizabeth Burton Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated Endangering a Person with a Passenger
Less Than 18 Years of Age – Class D Felony (Two Counts)
Neglect of a Dependent – Class D Felony (Two Counts)

Jeremy Jones Possession of a Controlled Substance – Class D Felony
Possession of Paraphernalia – Class A Misdemeanor

Jennifer Lefler Possession of Paraphernalia – Class A Misdemeanor
(Enhanced to a Class D Felony due to Prior Convictions)
Public Intoxication – Class B Misdemeanor

Richard McIntyre Possession of Methamphetamine – Class D Felony
Possession of Paraphernalia – Class A Misdemeanor
Possession of Marijuana – Class A Misdemeanor

Stephen Rainey Possession of Methamphetamine – Class D Felony
Possession of Paraphernalia – Class A Misdemeanor
(Enhanced to a Class D Felony due to Prior Convictions)
Possession of Marijuana – Class A Misdemeanor
(Habitual Substance Offender Enhancement)

Eric Sanders Possession of a Controlled Substance – Class D Felony (Two Counts)

Jeffery Thomas Carrying a Handgun without a License – Class A Misdemeanor (Two Counts)
(Enhanced to a Class C Felony due to Prior Convictions)

For further information on the cases listed above, or any pending case, please contact Carly Settles at 812.435.5688 or via e-mail at csettles@vanderburghgov.org.

Under Indiana law, all criminal defendants are considered to be innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.
SENTENCE CHART

Class Range
Murder 45-65 Years
Class A Felony 20-50 Years
Class B Felony 6-20 Years
Class C Felony 2-8 Years
Class D Felony ½ – 3 Years
Class A Misdemeanor 0-1 Year
Class B Misdemeanor 0-180 Days
Class C Misdemeanor 0-60 Days