EPD Activity Report April 1 2011

Dissin’ Manners and Mouths?
By: Cheeba Sobotka

OMGsh, I can’t believe he would come here with green things in his teeth! And now he’s like, yelling at me with “R” rated words, pumping my hand up and down and won’t let go!!! I’m tweeting this one.

Don’t act like this. Whoever you are, whoever your friend is, don’t. And if you act like this – stop it. No matter what you think about them, good manners and appropriate communication skills (not untamed mouths) do make a difference. With the huge impact of social networking sites, tweeting this tacky situation could make or break crucial relationships.

Another example: When out to lunch with a prospective client, I was disenchanted by a mouthful of talking food, a cell phone that HAD to be answered about every 3 minutes, and a conversation that was adrift throughout our limited time together. This is too rude.

To make matters worse, when I received an email from this person, (unisex name “Bobby”) it looked as if a fourth grader had sent it. Whoops, another one slid through the system. Obviously this seemingly well-educated person needed an English do-over or an email 101 class.

Though “Bobby” was a very caring person with a great deal of marketable skills, these issues alone seemed to cast a great deal of doubt about the ability to succeed in business in this globally competitive world.

Yet another example: Have you ever eaten with people that eat hunched over their food, inhaling every bite while pushing food on their fork with their finger? If you grew up in a home like this, it’s not a bad thing, but it may be time to give it up. If you do it at home, you’ll do it when eating out. Now combine this with “green stuff in the teeth” and you’ve got a pretty sorry mess with a very little probable case for career advancement.

Finale: If you’re still thinking that this stuff is not that important, remember that we now live in a global business environment that just happens to be in a period of exponential change. It’s not going to stop or slow down while you catch up.

Most of all get over yourself because even though some of the old rules are being re-written, great manners and well-honed conversational skills are still essential. The more success you attain, the more polished manners will make a difference. Who knows? You may end up across the table from some real life royalty as opposed to the person with green stuff in his teeth!

Secondhand smoke (SHS) is a known human carcinogeni, and is responsible for an estimated 50,000 deaths and other illnesses each yearii. Secondhand smoke exposure remains a major public health concern, although it is entirely preventableiii,iv. In 2006, the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that “there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke” and that “eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.”

Policies requiring smoke free environments are the most effective method for reducing secondhand smoke exposure in public places. Currently, 24 states have enacted smoke free workplace laws that cover all workplaces—including workplaces such as bars and restaurants—and this represents approximately 60% of the U.S. population.

In order to protect the public’s health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set limits of 15 μg/m3 as the average annual level of PM2.5 exposure and 35 μg/m3 24-hour exposure. PM2.5 is the concentration of particulate matter in the air smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter. Particles of this size are released in significant amounts from burning cigarettes and are easily inhaled deep into the lungs.

The study assessed indoor air quality in all 11 casinos located in Indiana during visits in April and
May, 2008.

The average level of fine particle indoor air pollution on the casino gaming floors was 14 times higher than outdoor background levels and PM2.5 levels considered healthy by the US EPA.

Study Highlights

ï‚· The average level of fine particle indoor air pollution on the gaming floor was 159 μg/m3 (range 30 – 323 μg/m3), 14 times higher than outdoor background levels.

ï‚· Employees and patrons of these casinos are exposed to very unhealthy levels of fine particle air pollution exposure according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air Quality Index.

 A full-time casino employee’s average annual PM2.5 exposure would be three times the annual limit that is considered healthy.

The only way to eliminate the health risks of tobacco smoke pollution exposure is to establish smoke free workplaces. Despite the ventilation systems installed at these casinos, employees and patrons are exposed to elevated and potentially harmful levels of fine particle air pollution as a result of indoor smoking.

Referemces:

i. National Toxicology Program. 9th Report on Carcinogens 2000. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; 2000.

ii. CDC. Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and economic costs – United States, 1995-1999; MMWR
2002;51(14):300-320.

iii. Second national report on human exposure to environmental chemicals. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health, 2003.

iv. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing tobacco use: a report of the Surgeon General. Washington, D.C.: US Government
Printing Office, 2000.

v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: a report of
the Surgeon General.Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 2006.

vi. Hopkins DP, Briss PA, Ricard CJ, Husten CG, Carande-Kulis VG, Fielding JE, et al. Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce
tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Am J Prev Med 2001;20(2 Suppl):16-66.

vii Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, January 2, 2008.

New research from Stanford and Tufts universities shows secondhand smoke is a
danger to tens of millions of casino patrons and hundreds of thousands of workers.
Threats range from heart attacks to cancer.

BY ANDREW MYERS
Millions of Americans visit casinos to unwind and test their luck against the hands of fate, but lurking
in the shadows is a gamble few would contemplate before they stepped inside a casino’s doors. The
threat is not addiction. It’s not the specter of losing a small fortune. The hidden danger is secondhand
smoke.

According to a new study by scientists from Stanford and Tufts universities published in the journal Environmental Research, each year 50 million nonsmoking casino patrons and 400,000 nonsmoking casino workers gamble with their lives inside casinos that allow smoking. Less than 2 hours of exposure to secondhand smoke in half of the casinos surveyed is enough to impair the heart’s ability to pump blood, placing susceptible casino patrons and workers at acute risk of heart disease.

Coronary heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States and is a major cause of disability, costing the country an estimated $151.6 billion in 2007. Approximately 8 percent of the population 45 to 64 years of age, and 20 percent of those aged over 65, suffers from coronary heart disease. These older people are at greater risk from exposure to secondhand smoke. Compounding the concern, the two age groups have higher gambling rates than those under 45.

The team of experts from Stanford and Tufts examined pollution levels in 66 smoky casinos in five
states, and three casinos that are smoke-free, comparing them with the pollution levels outdoors. The
study is a continuation of earlier research conducted at 36 casinos in California. An additional 30
casinos were tested in four other states.

To make their measurements, the researchers operated covertly. Two to three researchers at a time entered casinos carrying small monitoring devices tucked inside purses or jackets. Combining the Stanford/Tufts data with previously published measurements from three other states, the team developed nationwide averages and ranges for pollution levels inside casinos.

The study focused on two types of air pollutants blamed for tobacco-related cancers: fine particulate
matter, which deposits deep in the lungs, and a group of chemicals called particulate polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, or PPAHs, which include at least 10 different carcinogenic compounds. Results
show that gamblers and casino workers in casinos that permit smoking are subject to levels of
particulate air pollution 10 times higher than those who visit smoke-free casinos.

The researchers also found that ventilation and air cleaning do not control indoor smoke levels. “The
only effective control for secondhand smoke was reducing the number of smokers,” said Lynn
Hildemann, a professor of environmental engineering and science at Stanford and the principal
investigator for the study.

“The fewer smokers, the less polluted the air. If you switch to a nonsmoking casino, your exposure to
harmful fine particulate matter levels indoors will be reduced by 90 percent, and your exposure to
carcinogenic PPAH levels will decrease by 80 percent.”

Unfortunately, smoke-free casinos are rare. In the United States, 88 percent of commercial casinos
and nearly 100 percent of tribal casinos allow smoking.

Those patrons who seek refuge in nonsmoking areas attached to the smoking casinos – such as
restaurants, where children are found – find scant protection. Unless these areas are completely
sealed off from the casino, with closed doors and a separate ventilation system, the researchers found
that secondhand smoke seeps in, resulting in pollution levels seven times as high as outdoors.

In contrast, the three smoke-free casinos surveyed had pollution levels as low as the outdoors. In more than nine-of-ten smoking casinos in the survey, the indoor pollution levels exceeded the World
Health Organization standard for fine particulate matter.

“Casino patrons are gambling not only with their money, but with their health, and the odds are stacked against them,” said Hildemann. “Casinos have always been huge draws, but in recent years we’ve seen an increase of family activities tied to casinos. So in addition to seniors, the health risks are starting to reach new, more vulnerable populations, particularly children.”

The pervasive secondhand smoke indoors poses an even graver health threat to casino workers. In the
new study, using published data measuring the levels of cotinine, a biomarker of tobacco that shows up in human tissue, Hildemann and colleagues added to earlier results and found amounts of cotinine in casino dealers who are nonsmokers were higher than in 95 percent of the nonsmoking U.S. population.

Nevada casino dealers have triple the asthma rates of the general state population. “Cotinine levels in these nonsmoking workers – who were exposed only while at work – significantly increased between the beginning and the end of their work shift. Similar results have been found in casino patrons with shorter exposures. This is clearly due to secondhand smoke in the casino,” said James Repace, a biophysicist and visiting assistant clinical professor at Tufts University School of Medicine.

The study was funded by the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute.

Andrew Myers is associate director of communications at the School of Engineering.

EPD Activity Report March 31 2011

From the University of Tennessee Technical Advisory Service

UT Consolidation Presentation

From: The Pros and Cons of Consolidated Government
By: Patrick Hardy, MTAS, 2007

Introduction

This essay is meant to provide a list of items to consider when examining city/county consolidated government. These are presented in the form of a list of “pros” and “cons”. The list is by no means all inclusive. Certainly there are other items which should be deliberated, especially in light of particular circumstances surrounding any given consolidation effort.

Whether any particular item belongs of the list of “pros” or on the list of “cons” may depend on which jurisdiction you are from. That’s because an item may be a “pro” to one jurisdiction but a “con” to another. This list was generated from articles and books written on the subject of consolidation and thus represents the opinions or perceptions of these authors. Therefore these views may or may not apply in other circumstances, and as noted in a previous paper, very little “hard” (empirical) research exists which verifies some of these opinions.

The “Cons” of Consolidation

1. Changes in Structure: County and city governments are each used to operating with a certain structure. If consolidation occurs that structure will change for both jurisdictions.

Counties operate with what is largely a “politically dominated”, fragmented structure. That is, they have a great number of elected officials with quasi-independent offices, including an elected executive. Cities on the other hand are more centralized, with very few elected officials, usually only the Board, and an appointed executive. Under a consolidated arrangement there will normally be fewer elected officials (but more than in a typical city), and an appointed or elected executive. This “hybrid” form, which results in alterations to both city and county structures, may present challenges which are difficult for both jurisdictions to overcome. Since a number of county elected positions will normally be eliminated, these office holders may be unwilling to support to such a structure. On the other hand, with the addition of more elected offices, city officials may also have difficulty supporting a structure which they see as too fragmented. Let’s look more closely at the specifics of existing State law as it relates to a consolidated structure.

The Tennessee Constitution requires that all county governments, including a consolidated government, have at least 5 elected “constitutional offices.” These include the Sheriff, County Clerk, Assessor of Property, Trustee, and a Register (see Tennessee Constitution, Article VII Section 1.). Under other provisions of the Constitution there is a required elected Circuit Court Clerk (who may be either a county or district officer – the Legislature has chosen to make this a county office). There is also a Clerk and Master who is appointed by the Chancellors. The Tennessee Constitution, Article VII Section 1 further states that a consolidated government is exempt from other constitutional mandates requiring a county executive and a county legislative body (the new consolidated government will have its own legislative body).

The Constitution later authorizes the General Assembly to provide for consolidation of local governments (see Tennessee Constitution, Article XI Section 9.) The General Assembly has done this, and these provisions can be found in TCA Title 7 Sections 7-1-101 et. seq.

A question arises regarding the offices listed above as required by the Tennessee Constitution. Specifically, does a consolidated government have to have these offices? This question has been answered on at least four separate occasions by the Attorney General’s office, and the answer is “yes”. These opinions are attached as an Appendix to this report. However, it should be noted that in the Tennessee Constitution, Article VII Section 1. it is stated, “The General Assembly may provide alternate forms of county government …..” Some believe that this provision would not appear in the Constitution unless it was meant to provide the General Assembly with the option of establishing a form of county government which does not include the “constitutional offices” listed above. This opinion is in contrast to the opinions presented by the Attorney General’s office, but is noteworthy because there exists a possibility that the final answer would be provided by the courts, if a consolidation effort was attempted which excluded some or all of these offices. But it may also be possible for a consolidated government to later amend their charter to exclude one or more of these offices if deemed appropriate at that time.

A significant point regarding a consolidated structure should here be made. Of the 7 “constitutional offices” listed above (including the Circuit Court Clerk and Clerk and Master), only one of these provides a service which is duplicated by most existing city governments. That of course is the Sheriff’s office. Thus, the “hybrid” form created by a consolidation may not be as disruptive to the existing structure most comfortable to city officials. In fact, a consolidated government could be established which utilizes an appointed executive responsible for the day to day administration of the jurisdiction’s affairs. Those offices which would not come under this “council-manager” type structure would continue to function as they do under the existing county government arrangement. The only exception to this is again the Sheriff’s office. However, the duties of this office could be somewhat altered (for example, in the consolidated jurisdiction of Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County the Sheriff operates the jail while an appointed professional administers the police department).

However, it should also be noted that although many of the “required” offices do not provide services which duplicate those of most cities, one cannot assume that such services should be provided by the establishment and coordination of offices such as those which are “required”. In other words, there may be better, more efficient, or more responsive alternatives to providing these services, but existing constitutional requirements prevent consideration of such.

It should also be pointed out that a consolidated jurisdiction’s charter may require continuation of certain county offices (although this is a choice for the Charter Commission). For example, the Hartsville/Trousdale County metropolitan government chose to retain the Superintendent of Highways position, which is now responsible for duties of the previous city Street Superintendent. In addition they have chosen to continue the office of Sheriff, now responsible for the duties of the former city Chief of Police. The County Executive office also remains, and is responsible for all municipal administrative duties, prerogatives, and services previously provided by the County Executive and city Mayor.

2. Distribution and Control of Resources: Cities are partially funded through per capita state-shared revenues. For most cities, this is the largest revenue source. Other city revenues are from sales and property taxes. Under a consolidated government the new entity is divided into an “urban services district” (formerly the “city”) and a “general services district” (formerly the “county”). Even though city residents still generate sales taxes and state-shared per capita revenues, these revenues are spent by a newly formed governing body. Thus, “urban services” (city) residents may lose some control over where and how their dollars are spent. They may instead be spent in the “general services” district (formerly the county).

The opposite may also be true, and accounts for much of the opposition to consolidation from suburban residents when faced with becoming part of a large inner city jurisdiction. In this case such residents are concerned about the higher taxes and diminished political clout associated with becoming part of a larger jurisdiction.

3. Level of Service/Reduction of Service Considerations: As mentioned earlier, a large governing body with a number of members elected from the county (or “general services” district) will decide what services will be provided and at what level. Thus, city residents who are accustomed to and demand a given level of service may be unable to guarantee that their service demands are met.

Under a consolidated government it is also possible that city residents may experience a reduction in service and/or a resulting increase in costs. For example, resources which go to support the lower “fire rating” of most cities (when compared to counties) may be spent in the “general services” district in an effort to improve their rating. The resulting move of expenditures over time may mean that “city” residents receive a lower level of service or a level of service which does not improve over time, but remains constant. This is because the tendency may be to provide equivalent services through most of the consolidated jurisdiction, resulting in a diminution of service in the urban services district and an increased level of services in the general services district. Therefore this component can be viewed as a “positive” for county residents and a “negative” for city residents.

4. Citizen Satisfaction With Services: Research has been conducted to determine if citizens in consolidated jurisdictions are more satisfied with services than are citizens in similar non-consolidated jurisdictions. The results of these tests are mixed. Most show that for certain services citizens are equally satisfied. But for many more services they are more satisfied in non-consolidated jurisdictions than under a consolidated arrangement.

5. Decision-Making Difficulties: Generally, the governing bodies of consolidated jurisdictions are quite large. For example, the board of Nashville/Davidson County contains 42 members, the Lynchburg/Moore County board has 15 members and the Hartsville/Trousdale County board has 14 members. Needless to say, decision-making under this arrangement can be difficult at best. These problems are exacerbated by the decentralized and dispersed authority of the additional “constitutional” offices.

6. Policy and Administration Demarcation: It is generally accepted that there are two levels of decision-making which must be undertaken in order for local governments to effectively deliver services. The first is “policy-making”, or the deciding of what will be done and at what level. The second is “administration”, or the actual doing or delivering of the service. Policy-making is best undertaken by elected representatives of the citizens in the form of a governing body. Administration is best undertaken by trained professionals, hired by the governing body based on their qualifications. Under a consolidated arrangement these levels of decision-making are blurred. This is because there is no separation of powers. The same persons elected to decide policy are the same persons who must administer the operations of the government.

Much of this could be overcome if significant alterations are made which serve to combine the best of both the city and county structures (as discussed above).

7. Loss of the Sense of Community: Needless to say, residents of both the county and participating cities may experience a loss in their sense of “community” when jurisdictions consolidate. In short, there will no longer be a City of XXXX or a XXXXX County.

References

William Lyons and John M. Scheb II. “Saying No One More Time: The Rejection of Consolidated Government in Knox County, Tennessee.” State and Local Government Review. Vol. 30, No. 2 (Spring 1998), 94.

From: The Pros and Cons of Consolidated Government
By: Patrick Hardy, MTAS, 2007

Introduction

This essay is meant to provide a list of items to consider when examining city/county consolidated government. These are presented in the form of a list of “pros” and “cons”. The list is by no means all inclusive. Certainly there are other items which should be deliberated, especially in light of particular circumstances surrounding any given consolidation effort.

Whether any particular item belongs of the list of “pros” or on the list of “cons” may depend on which jurisdiction you are from. That’s because an item may be a “pro” to one jurisdiction but a “con” to another. This list was generated from articles and books written on the subject of consolidation and thus represents the opinions or perceptions of these authors. Therefore these views may or may not apply in other circumstances, and as noted in a previous paper, very little “hard” (empirical) research exists which verifies some of these opinions.

The “Pros” of Consolidation: Real and Perceived

1. Efficiency: There is a perception that a consolidated government will be more efficient (services delivered at less cost) than will separate city and county governments. However, this may only be a perception. A number of studies have been done in this regard and the results are mixed. In other words, efficiency of consolidated government has not been demonstrated or verified empirically. Efficiency can only be realized in certain cases, and there is no guarantee that on the whole service-delivery costs can be reduced. What this probably means is that in order for efficiencies to occur, the “system” must be actively and very well managed.

2. Less Duplication of Services: There are a few services provided by cities and counties which are currently duplicated and may better be provided jointly. For example, road and bridge construction and paving, fire protection, animal control, or the purchase of goods and materials could be jointly provided in order to increase buying power. Another example is elections, some of which will be eliminated under a consolidated jurisdiction, and thus costs will be reduced.

However, it should be noted that many cities and counties are currently working to jointly provide these services through mechanisms other than consolidation of governments (as discussed in number 3 below).

3. Opportunities For Jointly-Provided Services: As an alternative to consolidation there are many services which can and are jointly provided by cities and counties. For example, some cities contract with the county for law enforcement services, or there are joint ambulance programs, joint animal control, or joint fire service programs. In addition, solid waste may be provided on a “regional” basis and many public safety dispatch services are now jointly provided. In short, there are a number of mechanisms such as the use of interlocal agreements which currently allow jurisdictions to jointly provide services.

4. Improved Coordination of Services: Many services are better coordinated on a larger, cross-jurisdictional scale. For example, fire protection, school transportation, sanitation collection, or planning and zoning services are many times constrained under a multi-jurisdictional system. Consolidation may improve the application of these types of services. It may also provide a vehicle for the application of services which are interdependent such as building permits and fire protection or housing and welfare/health.

5. Expanded Services: New and expanded services will likely be provided to areas not previously served. This is because a fundamental goal of consolidation is to introduce a greater degree of service provision to a larger area. In effect, the level of services experienced by a city will be expanded to the county in order to bring the county up to previous city levels. It should be noted that this may be a negative aspect for city residents, because many of their resources may be funneled to provide services to county residents.

6. The Possibility of Improved Utilization of Some Resources: Under a consolidated jurisdiction there may be opportunities to better coordinate services in order to reduce costs or provide better services at the same cost. Some of these opportunities are, for example, finance-related services such as accounting, billing, or annual audits, or services which require the use of specialized equipment which is infrequently used and yet is currently purchased by both jurisdictions (a GIS system for example).

7. Fewer Officials: A consolidated government should have fewer officials with whom the citizenry must interact. The “system” should be easier to understand and may result in better visibility and public focus regarding governmental actions. However, this may be offset by a decreased responsiveness since fewer officials will represent and serve a greater number of citizens.

8. Reduced Jurisdictional Confusion: Many voters are now confused by the array of governmental jurisdictions to which they belong. Reducing this number may increase citizen interest in government and will simplify confusion over “who does what”. Here too, there are a number of services which either the city or county provide to all or a portion of residents in the other’s jurisdiction. Some of these include water, sewer, schools, or parks and recreation. This interplay of overlapping services will largely be reduced under a consolidated system.

9. Economy of Scale: It is many times assumed that an economy of scale has not been reached in most cities and counties, and that excess capacity to deliver services exists. Under this assumption, a consolidated government will improve the economy of scale under which these jurisdictions operate. However, this is many times a false assumption. For many years now, cities and counties have either “downsized”, reduced operations, increased revenue sources in order to continue to provide the same level of service, or responded to so many requirements (mandates) for services that they have nearly all reached an economy of scale. Thus, in many cases there is no excess city capacity to deliver additional services. In short, many cities and counties have reached an economy of scale and consolidation will not provide any tangible benefits in this regard.

10. Improved Harmony: A consolidated government may help reduce discord among two or more existing governments. For example, annexation disputes or local planning and zoning issues may be more easily resolved. In addition, today’s decision-makers increasingly realize how their actions affect the quality of life for their neighbors. Under a consolidated jurisdiction leaders may better learn to legislate from a “regional” perspective.

11. An Economic Development Edge: Having one government may allow the jurisdiction to react more quickly and provide better resources to prospective business or industry clients. These clients would no longer have the red tape of two or more jurisdictions with which to deal. Instead these services can be provided through one point of contact, thus easing the ability of businesses to deal with local government.

12. Equalization of Services: Under a consolidated government, many services which are now provided at different levels will be equalized. For example, two separate school systems will become one, and thus school services will be equivalent for all students.

13. Opportunities for New Services – Sharing of Costs: Under a consolidated jurisdiction there will be a greater sharing of the costs of services, especially for area-wide services. This being the case, a number of new services may become possible since costs will be more widely distributed. In other words, the jurisdiction may be able to accomplish together what it could not individually.

References

Gulick, Luther. “Needed: A New Layer of Local Self-Government” in Edward C. Banfield, Urban Government – A Reader in Administration and Politics (New York: The Free Press, 1969), 150.

Brett Hawkins, Keith Ward and Mary Becker. “Governmental Consolidation As a Strategy For Metropolitan Development.” Public Administration Quarterly. Vol. 15, No. 2, Summer 1991, 261.

Parzen, Julia. “Innovations in Metropolitan Government.” The Metropolitan Initiative, March 11, 1997.

IS IT TRUE that City Centre Properties is the owner of record of the McCurdy Hotel?…that the McCurdy property is located at 100 SE Riverside Drive and is delinquent with respect to the November 2010 property tax payment in the amount of $9,792.31 and has been assessed a penalty of $979.24?…that City Centre Properties is currently delinquent on the property taxes for the McCurdy Hotel in the amount of $10,771.55?…that to bring this account current that City Centre Properties will have to bring a payment of $21,040.21 in by the next tax due date of May 10, 2011?…that if taxes are not brought current by May 10, 2012 that the McCurdy may just find its way onto the tax sale the following August?

IS IT TRUE that City Centre Properties and Scott Kosene the developers of the McCurdy project are both listed as contributors to the Weinzapfel for Mayor committee for 2010?…that Mayor Weinzapfel has announced that he will not be seeking his party’s nomination for Mayor in 2011?…that this developer chose to contribute to Mayor Weinzapfel’s fictional campaign at a time that it also made the conscious decision to not pay the property taxes on the McCurdy to the Vanderburgh County Treasurer?…that one’s priorities always tell you something about someone or some business?…that choosing cigarettes over food, liquor over tuition, or political contributions over taxes come from that self serving and misdirected part of some personalities?…that City Centre Properties chose to contribute to a campaign that Mayor Weinzapfel will never run and simultaneously chose to forego paying property taxes on the McCurdy Hotel?…that we really wonder what this means to the future development prospects of the McCurdy?

IS IT TRUE that the City County Observer had a record internet traffic day yesterday?…that our content was read by 14% more people yesterday than it ever has been?…that more people accessed our content yesterday than votes were needed to win any Evansville City Council position in the 2007 City of Evansville elections and double the number needed to win any of the contested primaries?

IS IT TRUE that a member of a prominent local Westside political family refers to the City County Observer on her Facebook page by using profane language in to describe the publication?…that it is wonderful to live in a free country where we enjoy a free press and people are allowed freedom of expression?…that starting a cussing contest with a publication that has more readers than your relative needs votes to win may not be a prudent action?…that we remove cuss words from our comment section just like other publications that allow anonymous comments as soon as we find out?

IS IT TRUE that tomorrow night is the semifinal round of the Final Four in Houston?…that UE is quite well connected to the Cinderella semifinal matching Butler and Virginia Commonwealth?…that the Aces beat Butler and also defeated Hofstra that finished higher than VCU did in their conference?…that someday with the successful recruiting of just two star players to go with an always solid supporting cast the Evansville Aces will follow Butler, VCU, George Mason, and others to the Final Four?…that is really is possible but like other things takes planning, execution, and maybe a little luck?

IS IT TRUE that the City County Observer is encouraged to learn that Keep Evansville Beautiful is taking some action to improve the appearance of the northern gateway to Evansville?…that this is something that has been discussed as a need for many years now?…that gateways and parks say more about a cities quality of life than any Arena or ballfield?…that this is a great step in the right direction and that we congratulate Keep Evansville Beautiful for taking this giant task on?

Unedited Version of the 4-H Center Meeting that was spoken of Last Night

Questions/Comments/Concerns
presented by public
at City/County Reorganization Informational Session
sponsored by Vanderburgh Co. Farm Bureau, Inc. on Dec. 7, 2010

Introduction
Initiation of the Reorganization Process and Purpose

• Who is paying for the committee’s work? Who is paying for the lawyers who work on all the legal work to make city/county reorganization happen?

• If this is voted down, how much time if any must elapse before it can be petitioned to be voted on again?

Voter Threshold, Voter Approval

• Why is the vote recommended at a simple majority?

• This committee is asking to change the constitution of our government and in order to do that it must be ratified by a minimum 2/3 majority.

• With the population of the county being only 20% of the voters, why is this not a separate vote for county and city residents respectfully?

• Plan states reorganization shall be deemed approved if percentage of voters who vote in favor of it is greater than 50%. Voting percentage should be 2/3 (66%) instead of 50% with such a major change in government. It should require more than a simple majority.

• When you’re voting against the city which has 2/3 more votes and getting 12% tax break, it isn’t fair.

• The “county” should have a higher percentage vote on the proposal.

• The county voters and city voters must approve the merger–each by a majority for acceptance. This is per IC 36-1.5-4-18(8): “rejection threshold must be the same for each municipality that is a party to the proposed reorganization and to the county that is a party to the proposed reorganization”.

• 2/3 majority on votes to accept combined government.

• The vote percentage for approval should be (2/3) 66%.

• I want a 1/3 – 2/3 majority vote!

• Raise the percentage by which this must pass. If the proposal is good for both entities, it will still pass. If it is stacked for one entity, the other has a chance to defeat it.

• Please advise that the referendum (city/co. constitutional change) require 2/3 approval by resident vote.

• Please allow for minimum of a 2/3 majority to pass the merger of city/county government. This is only fair to represent the county.

• Should be 2/3 vote for passage – same as federal government.

Article 1: General Provisions
1.6 Partisan Elections

• Why are elections partisan? Non-partisan just like George Washington suggested.

Article 2: Executive Branch
2.1 Mayor is Chef Executive

• To give mayor and his appointed combined government all authority and functions of government sounds only like a concentration of power. This plan changes only authority and tax rate. It’s like having a king rule over us.

• Please do not allow the Mayor MORE POWER no matter who he is!!

• I am against this merger. It gives too much power to the Mayor.

• Local government in the US is designed (intelligently) to be decentralized. This consolidation/reorganization plan seems to seek the opposite–it seeks to centralize county and city government. This is not necessarily simplification. It appears by your plan that is measure “centralizes” power in the executive – the Mayor’s office.

• This plan increases the power of the Mayor’s office substantially: Mayoral appointments “shall not require advice or consent of the Common Council”. WHY?

• The Mayor’s power needs to be reduced – not enhanced.

• This is moving forward with the potential for Mayoral power grab.

• The analogy of a “corporation” was used. Yes, corporations have a president but that president reports to a board of directions. If this passes, why can’t a Mayor report to the county commissioners? The people in the county seem pretty happy with the government now. The city seems unhappy.

• There are mentions of how government will protect, enhance or increase citizens freedoms and liberties. No considerations to minimize or “check” the elected officials from being corrupted or abusing the powers that are consolidated under this Plan. To me it seems we are centralizing government which leads to abuses. It steps away from a republic. Checks and balances are removed.

• Mayor appointing all positions; we are going back to the King and Queen days.

2.3 Term of Office

• Staggered election for continuity.

• Staggered elections happen every two years already–why not allow one or two new elected officials every election? We do not believe all power players being elected at the same time is good.

• I think there should be a two year term.

• All officials elected at once. Cities do. No other unit of government uses this method. Staggered terms will provide a balance and continuity.

• Why do you propose the vote for Mayor and council be held at the same time?

2.4 Term Limits

• Need term limits for the mayor.

• Mayor should have term limits.

• Please keep limits.

• Why would you propose no term limits on the Mayor’s office?

• You are asking us to trust politicians without term limits?

2.7 Executive Officers

• Mayor has too much power for appointments.

• Reduce Mayoral appointees or this will likely become a corruption financed by developers. Farm land taxes will increase and drive them to sell to developers. Developers will help keep re-electing a Mayor who oils the chain.

Article 3: Legislative/Fiscal Branch
3.3 Number of Members

• Only 11 members on Common Council will mean less representative government for all of Vanderburgh County including city.

3.4 No Geographic Districts for At-Large Members

• There should be no more than three members of the executive and common council from any district. Under the Plan, the Mayor, district common council member and all three at-large common council members could to be from the same district/area. The maximum number of executive and common council members per district should be limited to three.

3.5 Description of Eight (8) Common Council Districts

• To provide more equal representation of the area outside current city limits, elect the county council plus two at-large county council members from area outside city limits and two at-large county council members from inside the current city limits. We need equal representation.

3.6 Term of Office

• Terms of office for Common Council should be staggered.

• It is possible to have a complete new group leading the city at the same time (Mayor, Common Council and all appointments). Why shouldn’t there be staggered terms?

Article 5: Elected Offices Other Than Mayor and Common Council
5.1 County Offices Retained

• We would go from having 38 elected politicians to 29. This is less representation of the people.

5.4 Services Outside the Jurisdiction of an Elected Official

• Plan states all departments, boards, commissions, agencies and authorities be determined by mayor. Why shouldn’t the eleven elected members of the Common Council have a say?

Article 7: Tax Rates and Service Districts
7.1 Tax Rates

• Scenario #4 of the financial analysis shows all township (including 4 in Darmstadt) taxes increasing 22 cents per $100. All townships in Evansville city limits go down 10 cents per $100.

• We do not need more taxes. We are taxed enough already. People moved to the county for lower taxes and not have to pay for services they can take care of.

• Are taxes going to change and, if this is voted in, when would the change occur?

• If you have a more streamlined government, why would there be a need for higher taxes?

7.4 Expansion of Urban Services District

• Could the city annex service districts by merely the new council voting it in?

Article 9: Consolidatation of City and County Departments
9.1 City and County Departments Combined

• Will we keep our Co. Highway Garage?

Article 10: Transition
10.2 Duties of and Support to the Transition Board
10.2.1 Specific Duties

• If the referendum passes, the transition board will adopt a budget. Many will not be elected but appointed. I do not want an appointed person setting the budget for my government. That task should be done only by people elected by us.

10.6 Effect of Reorganization on Indebtedness

• At the present time, what is the total property tax debt for the city of Evansville versus the county of Vanderburgh?

10.8 Effect of Reorganization on City and County Resolutions and Ordinances
10.8.2 Unified Code of Ordinances

• City rules are more restrictive than county rules. City rules thus will limit further county citizens of doing many things they can presently do.

• What protection does the farmland have in this consolidation?

10.8.3 Land Use and Firearms Ordinances

• Will firearms be allowed in the county for hunting?

Article 11: Amendments
11.1 Plan Review and Amendment
11.1.2 Citizen Petition

• Revise 11.1.2, Citizen Petition

General Questions/Comments/Concerns

• How will this benefit the county? We need a pro and con list so we can see the benefit.

• Do you have written approval or disapproval of the town of Darmstadt? I think it is required.

• I think the city only wants the county for our money!

• More money needed for the city. Control of money.

• I feel the general consensus of the people is “streamlining” government upsets the balance of power concerning checks and balances. We need the schism of differences in order to represent ALL the people. This thought carries over in the area of elected officials being allowed to “elect” persons to office. Checks and balances dictate that all public officials ought to be elected “by the people”.

• I do not want this EVGRSC to pass.

• This needs more study and clarification of questions.

• I want to be included on any subject of this reorganization study and/or any public meetings on this subject. (signed Gary Minnick; email garyminnick@wowway.com)

• There is no use having these meetings. It’s probably cut and dry.

• Compare consolidation expenses with a city the size of Evansville–not larger cities.

• As this is, take it back and redo before vote. This one stinks for county residents.

• Who wants this merger?

• What benefits will there be for our county government?

• How do we get rid of consolidated government if it is not beneficial? The Plan should address a process to dissolve. A good business partnership agreement has this process addressed.

• Not a good idea! Can it!

• City plans to gain cost savings – no benefit to county residents. For a single example, flood costs are shared county-wide but drainage taxes will be retained for county residents. FAIR??!!

• How much will I save by consolidation? My assessor was eliminated to save money but my taxes increased. Where are my savings? Real estate has gone down so why should my assessment have gone up?

• How will this consolidation benefit the people in the county?

• How many people on this consolidation committee live in the county and how many are in the current city limits?

• This consolidation is being forced upon us by mostly city residents signing a petition.

• If we want the committee to change some of the recommendations, how can we do that?

• Why does the city want the county?