By: Bill Jeffers

Our community has four men running for Mayor of Evansville, two as Democrats and two as Republicans. At the same time, the city council and county commissioners are conducting a series of workshops to modify the plan of reorganization of Vanderburgh County and Evansville municipal government submitted by the reorganization committee appointed by the mayor, the two councils, and the county commissioners. Therefore, it seems appropriate to ask each candidate for Mayor of Evansville exactly what his opinion is of the plan of reorganization, how the plan should be modified, whether a plan of consolidated government should be adopted, specifically how a consolidated government will or will not benefit Evansville, and specifically how each candidate would implement his powers and duties under a plan of consolidation if one were to pass the referendum in 2012.

Bottom line, it is time for the candidates to stop skirting this issue, and tell us exactly what they think and how they plan to support the plan, or work against the plan, and how they would behave and institute policy as mayor if and when a merger referendum passes.

Okay, here are some key issues, most of which each candidate for mayor has used in his political advertising, along with some questions asking how the candidate specifically will address each issue:
Retaining Existing Jobs and Creating New “Good” Jobs: Well, all the candidates claim to support job retention, and promise to create “good” jobs as Mayor of Evansville. Most claim job creation as issue #1, and each says he is about the business of bringing “good” jobs to Evansville. So, let’s hear from each candidate specifically how consolidated government will attract new jobs and retain existing jobs. Will it? How exactly? What exactly is a “good” job? And how will each candidate utilize his powers as mayor, under the reorganization plan, to attract new jobs and retain existing jobs. No hedging. No generic talking points. Please, just specifics related to the consolidation plan. As a side bar, how does each candidate view the fact that the reorganization plan avoids reducing existing government jobs, and thus shows no cost savings?

Responsible Municipal Budgeting and “No New Taxes:” Everyone knows Evansville municipal government faces budgetary crisis due to reduced population, deteriorating housing stock, reduced property valuations, rising healthcare costs for municipal employees, rising costs for fuel and supplies, and unfunded federal mandates imposing huge future bond debt. So, how does each mayoral candidate view the reorganization plan’s potential impact on the city budget when none of the pressing monetary issues are addressed by the plan, no cost savings are identified by the plan, the plan proposes to reduce the sewer rates for 1/3 of the jurisdiction while the federal EPA has mandated a half-billion dollars in sewer upgrades, etc.? Additionally, how can a mayoral candidate pledge to hold the line on taxes when at the same time supporting a plan of consolidation that will raise taxes and user fees on every single property owner countywide? What say all four mayoral candidates?

Public Safety: Yes, all candidates for mayor always claim public safety as one of the top two priorities during a campaign, as it should be. So, how does each of the four candidates for Mayor of Evansville see the roll of Sheriff and the roll of Chief of Police under the current plan of consolidation? How would each of the four candidates for mayor modify the plan of consolidation to fit his vision of a unified public safety department? Or alternately, how would each mayoral candidate organize the various departments of public safety if he were able to wave a magic wand and make the merger plan coincide with his vision for Evansville? Please be specific, and answer this one as if consolidation of local government is inevitable.

Listening to the People, Transparency, Accountability, etc.: All these words are warm and fuzzy when appearing on banners and in speeches. But each word has a meaning, and words such as these convey powerful images. So, as Mayor of Evansville, how would each candidate implement policies under a plan of consolidation to reflect his pledge to listen, be accountable to the People, and conduct a transparent government?

Before answering exactly how you would fulfill your pledge of open communications, transparency, and accountability to the People, thoroughly read the plan of consolidation. And please keep in mind that the current plan of consolidation creates a “strong mayor” with substantial powers to control all the other elected officeholders via his appointed budget director. Also, please take into account that the plan of consolidation gives the mayor the power to control important legislation by influencing his political caucus in the common council to withhold the super majority vote required to approve changes to the mayor’s budget submitted for other elected officeholders, or to effect future changes in the structure of government. Also under the plan of consolidation, the mayor could advise council members of his own party to attend crucial meetings only to the number required for a quorum (6) while preventing attendance to the super majority number (8) needed to amend the budget or effect a structural change, thereby killing the issue while still moving the hearing to a conclusion.

There are several sections in the plan of reorganization that grant unusually strong powers to the mayor, and each candidate should state his position on the most important of these potentialities only after carefully reading the plan. Then please state how you would modify the plan, or how you would execute policy under the plan when you become mayor of a consolidated municipality.

One Last Batch of Questions: If you are elected Mayor of Evansville in 2011, take office in 2012, and the plan of consolidation in whatever form passes the referendum in 2012, will you run for mayor again in 2014? Will you accept the condition of the current plan that the mayor will only serve and be paid to serve three years (2012, 2013, and 2014) instead of the customary four years, if the referendum passes? Do you approve the plan’s mandate that municipal elections in the off-presidential year 2014, a year sure to be one of hugely divisive national politics as are all off-presidential years? Or do you feel that municipal elections should continue to occur in odd-numbered years as currently provided by statute? Do you favor non-partisan municipal elections, or favor partisan elections as the plan proposes?

One of the four men currently on the 2011 primary ballot for Mayor of Evansville will begin serving as our mayor in 2012, when the consolidation plan goes to a referendum vote. It should be important to each of the four candidates for mayor that the voters of Evansville have a clear picture of his stand on the plan of consolidation right now, before the vote on Primary Day, May 3, 2011. Fact is, early voting already is under way, and daylight is burning waiting for specifics on the issues.

Atlas Shrugged’s Relevance is as applicable today as it was when it was written

Atlas Shrugged Movie: Part I Film Synopsis

Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling) runs Taggart Transcontinental, the largest remaining railroad company in America, with intelligence, courage and integrity, despite the systematic disappearance of her best and most competent workers.

She is drawn to industrialist Henry Rearden (Grant Bowler), one of the few men whose genius and commitment to his own ideas match her own. Rearden’s super-strength metal alloy, Rearden Metal, holds the promise that innovation can overcome the slide into anarchy.

Using the untested Rearden Metal, they rebuild the critical Taggart rail line in Colorado and pave the way for oil titan Ellis Wyatt (Graham Beckel) to feed the flame of a new American Renaissance.

Hope rises again, when Dagny and Rearden discover the design of a revolutionary motor based on static electricity – in an abandoned engine factory – more proof to the sinister theory that the “men of the mind” (thinkers, industrialists, scientists, artists, and other innovators) are “on strike” and vanishing from society.

Clip from the film when Dagny Taggert confronts a union representative:

IBISWORLD Study identifies dying American industries

1. Record retailers
2. Dealers in manufactured housing
3. Wired telecommunications carriers
4. Textile mills
5. Newspaper publishers
6. Apparel manufacturers
7. DVD, game & video rental stores
8. Providers of video postproduction services
9. The photofinishing industry
10. Renters of formal wear and costumes

http://www.ibisworld.com/Common/MediaCenter/Dying%20Industries.pdf

Louisville like other American cities including Evansville showed flight from the older neighborhoods into the suburbs. The former City of Louisville population does not seem to have seen any positive effects from the consolidation that was passed early in the decade. The population flight patterns experienced in the new Louisville-Jefferson metro serve to underline the opinion that redrawing the borders of a jurisdiction have little affect on people’s preference.

Here is a link to a color coded map that shows the growth patterns.

http://www.courier-journal.com/interactive/article/20110405/NEWS01/110405014/Graphic-2010-Census-Snapshot

EPD Activity Report April 5 2011

IS IT TRUE that it seems to have been raining 4’ x 8’ signs with Tornatta for Mayor emblazoned on them last weekend?…that it is hard to drive anywhere in Evansville without seeing one of these giant signs?…that one of the City County Observer Moles tells us that something on the order of 700 signs were planted recently by the Tornatta campaign?…that some new and creative tactics may be forthcoming from Team Troy?…that these tactics (if implemented) will be recommended by a CAMPAIGN CONSULTANT whose home base of operations is WASHINGTON DC?…that the next four weeks from the Democratic nomination perspective should be quite interesting?

IS IT TRUE that it has been a full week since the City County Observer offered the major candidates for Mayor of Evansville the opportunity to publish a position paper on their views on the consolidation?…that we have not had any acceptances from the candidates yet?…that the real hot button issue is threshold rejection?…that we reiterate our offer to the Mayoral candidates that we will publish their position papers without edit or bias on the topic of consolidation?…that the editor of the Community Observer will be issuing and in one case reissuing an invitation to participate in an e-debate specifically geared to the primaries?

IS IT TRUE that the Courier and Press has made an offer of their own to the candidates to respond to written questions?…that we congratulate them on offering to publish the well thought out responses to specific questions of relevance and interest?…that the questions that the Courier and Press have asked the candidates to respond to are limited to 60 words and deal with the issues of consolidation, sewer rate equalization, smoking ban, the future of Roberts Stadium, dilapidated housing, and job creation?…that a comprehensive answer to questions like these cannot possibly be answered with any substance in a 60 word sound bite?

IS IT TRUE that the written word in full essay form is a much more revealing way to learn how a candidates cognitive thought properties function?…that relying on sound bites to state positions has put not only our city but the entire country into a situation where the most important attribute to be elected is ACTING?…that many of the best performing leaders of history were not good actors but were very good thinkers and writers?…that an ACTORS JOB is to trick you into thinking that fantasy is reality?…that if most modern politicians were to join a union that the only union that would adequately represent them would be the SCREEN ACTORS GUILD?

IS IT TRUE that for that the City County Observer believes that it is time for the ACTING to stop and it is time for DEMONSTRATING COGNITIVE THOUGHT PROCESS as a prerequisite to be elected to public office?…that to promote that we will not impose any word limit on any position paper submitted by candidates for this year’s City of Evansville election?….that the Capital One commercial where an ACTOR assures the PILOT of a commercial aircraft that “everything is fine that he has played a pilot before” is reminiscent of MODERN ELECTED OFFICIALS?…that the higher up the ticket that one migrates the more like an ACTOR our government officials become?…that ONLY written answers with unlimited content will help to solve this issue?

IS IT TRUE that we are running a poll with respect to the Mayor of Evansville on our sister publication at www.community-observer.com?

IS IT TRUE that currently in Indiana there are no health insurance companies accepting child only policies? ….that that the Indiana Comprehensive Health Insurance Association (ICHIA) will not accept only healthy children either? ….that that it’s time that our locally elected state law makers look into this situation soon as possible?

City-County and Community Observer are conducting a Mayoral Primary Poll for both Democrat and Republican Candidates in this year’s election.

Winnecke? DeGroot?

Davis? Tornatta?

Cast your vote on Community Observer today!

IS IT TRUE? Part 2 April 5, 2011

IS IT TRUE that the Evansville Vanderburgh School Corporation’s Board voted last night to increase the tax rate on property in Vanderburgh County by 11.1%?…that the rate increase was approved to go from 54 cents per $100 assessment to 60 cents per $100 of assessment?…that this amounts to an increase of $60 in taxes for every $100,000 that your home is assessed for UNLESS you are one of the diligent people who has succeeded in having your assessed value reduced to reflect the DROP in housing values?…that if your home’s assessment recently was adjusted downward by 10% that mathematically this rate increase will not result in a tax increase at all?…that if the schools had a need for $540 from every $100,000 of assessed value last year and they need the same $540 this year but the assessments have fallen, that the only way for EVSC to remain revenue neutral is to raise the rate?…that the property owners of Vanderburgh County would be well served to concentrate on DOLLARS instead of RATES?

IS IT TRUE that we can expect similar RATE INCREASES in the next two years to make up for what is certain to be at least two more years of falling assessments?…that Indiana’s system of adjustment for assessment can run nearly two years behind actual market values?…that is why our assessments stayed high or even increased when our values started falling?…that is also why our assessments will continue to fall for a couple of years after our values stabilize?…that the CAP on the total amount of tax that can be levied will limit the effectivity of increasing the rate?…that in a falling market that the RATE to CAP ratio will only result in real dollar tax increases up to the point where the CAP is met?…that once again property owners all over Indiana need to concentrate on DOLLARS and not RATES?

IS IT TRUE that if values fell to ZERO as they have nearly done in some areas of urban squalor where crime, prostitution, and drugs drive families out and create abandonment zones then our schools will be in real trouble?…that in about the 3rd grade we all learned that ZERO times any number EQUALS ZERO?…that means that ANY RATE AT ALL times ZERO is ZERO?…that a falling market exposes a real weakness in PROPERTY TAX CAPS?…that in a rising market with market price assessment and a cap that things tend to work well and rate adjustments are seldom necessary?…that learning how to deal with falling real estate values is negatively affecting more than just schools?…that banking, credit, municipal budgets, family budgets, and yes schools are having to learn to cope with the ugly realities associated with the restricted cash flow that accompanies housing market meltdowns?

IS IT TRUE that learning is the operative word in this whole undesirable scenario?…that if Indiana can actually use cognitive thinking and cooperation to craft a way to adjust the property taxing process to assure adequate funding for EDUCATION and GOVERNMENT without handing politicians a blank check to finance cronyism and waste that it will be a testament to our education system that we can do so?…that defunding education on the basis of diminished valuation of real estate will not only make us a poor state from a net worth perspective but it will assure that we will become a dumb one too?

It is imperative to Indiana’s Prosecutors that any revision of the Criminal Code be comprehensive and balanced. Governor Daniels agreed with us. In fact, Governor Daniels stated that the sentencing reform proposal would provide “certain and firm punishment for the worst offenders.” Unfortunately, the original bill was neither comprehensive nor balanced. Nor did it provide any “certain and firm punishment for the worst offender.” In its original form it was simply soft-on-crime sentence reduction legislation. In Indiana, a person who beats a child to death will serve an average sentence of 5.1 years in prison. Indiana has more prison time reductions than any other state in the nation. Indiana’s Prosecutors were at the forefront of the creation of the Criminal Code Evaluation Committee created by the Indiana General Assembly whose mission was to conduct a comprehensive review of the Criminal Code, and to make recommendations for improving, enhancing, and streamlining criminal justice in Indiana.
According to the Legislative Services Agency, the average sentence given by an Indiana judge to a Class A felony child molester is 41 years of incarceration. Yet, the average actual time served for that same Class A child molester is 7.5 years. For a non-capital murder charge, the range of sentence under Indiana law is 45 to 65 years. However, the average actual time served for a non-capital murderer in the State of Indiana is 16 years. For Rape the range of possible incarceration is 6 to 20 years. Yet, the average actual time served for raping a woman in the State of Indiana is 3 ½ years. This disparity between the court ordered sentence for serious felony crimes and the significantly reduced actual time served upon conviction of these crimes is indicative of a substantial flaw in our Indiana criminal justice system that works as a disservice to the victims of crime and a failure of public safety confidence in the “truth” of Indiana’s sentencing laws.

The Criminal Code Evaluation Committee had been expected to look at these and other significant issues in a detailed and comprehensive manner and provide thoughtful guidance to the Indiana General Assembly over the future course of criminal justice in Indiana. However, what appropriately began as a comprehensive systemic review toward comprehensive reform has turned into a budgetary boondoggle in the name of crisis management.

The crisis? Suddenly in 2010, the citizens of Indiana were being told that the Indiana Department of Correction is beyond capacity and climbing at a rate higher than any other state in the nation. Suddenly, there is no time to devote to comprehensive reform as this crisis is so acute the need for a quick fix takes priority over comprehensive reform.

This crisis of an overcrowded DOC was not evident a few short years ago when the Administration contracted with California and Arizona to rent some 1,200 beds to those states to help solve their overcrowded conditions. Apparently, Indiana prisons had the space to spare and the deal was hailed as a clever way in which to raise revenue by the Administration. Unfortunately, those California and Arizona inmates rioted, and the deal was cancelled.

Senate Bill 561 ostensibly packaged as “justice reinvestment,” was based upon the Council of State Governments dire predictions that Indiana was going to need to build more prisons now unless we reduced the number of felons going to the Department of Correction and reduce the amount of years they spend there. The truth is the prison population has remained essentially stable over the last 4 years. On February 1, 2011, the Indiana prison population was 26,873, which was exactly the same as it was on February 1, 2010. On February 1, 2009, it was 26,663 and the number February 1, 2008, 26,299. This represents a 2.1% increase since 2008. The Pew Center on States, issued a 2009 report that Indiana ranks 8th in the nation for persons under parole or supervision and ranks 30th in nation for persons in prison. That same report indicated from 2006 to 2008 the increase in Indiana’s prison population was .6% and Kentucky was the highest at 12%.

The data cited by the Council of State Governments to support that there was a crisis inappropriately relied on numbers from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which included federal prisoners held in the State of Indiana. Federal prisoners have no relevance to the Indiana state prison population and the inclusion of those numbers for purposes of evaluating Indiana state prison population has resulted in a gross exaggeration of the data to support its conclusion that our state prison population is exploding. Indiana should not risk public safety based on exaggerated statistics designed to manufacture a crisis.

The chief mechanism offered by the Council of State Governments for solving this “crisis” of too many inmates in the DOC is the recommendation that Indiana substantially reduce the penalty for selling drugs. Therefore, rather than proceed to comprehensive reform, Indiana will simply redefine what it means to be a drug dealer. Indiana will make it more difficult and costly for law enforcement to catch drug dealers and will release them earlier if law enforcement does catch them.
This “solution” as proposed under the original submission of Senate Bill 561 is magnified by the immense complexity of illegal drugs in our communities. Most conservative estimates cite illegal drugs as playing a significant role in 70% of all criminal activity, including murder, armed robbery, residential burglaries, and domestic violence to name a few.

Although we support comprehensive reform, Indiana Prosecutors offered revisions to the bill that still reclassified certain offenses and provided budgetary relief. However, our proposed amendments also addressed the worst of the worst felons by shutting the revolving door that exposes our community to the most dangerous and violent criminals well before they have served the full and appropriate measure of their sentence. In fact, the Pew Center agrees. Their March 2009 report stated “serious, chronic, and violent offenders belong behind bars, for a long time, and the expense of locking them up is justified many times over.” There are many lawmakers who have recognized this and are working to provide a more balanced bill.

Indiana’s Prosecutors were recently maligned as a “special interest” group and it was suggested that the committee of Prosecutors that have been working to improve this legislation with lawmakers are but a vocal few who do not represent “most” Prosecutors. Well, it is true that we don’t represent “most” Prosecutors. We represent all 91 elected Prosecuting Attorneys in the State of Indiana. All 91 who are fully informed and fully engaged in this threat to public safety emanating from a so-called crisis and diverting all attention away from the much needed reform that will provide citizens of Indiana with a fair and proportional system. We are proud of the “special interest” group we represent. The “special interests” of victims of crimes. The “special interests” of women and children. The “special interests” of the elderly. The “special interests” of law abiding citizens and anyone who expects justice to be done. Indiana’s Prosecutors recognize and understand the impact of criminal justice policy as it plays out daily on our streets and in our courts.

The original sentencing reform proposal was a threat to public safety. The amendments we have suggested are fair, reasonable, cost effective and most importantly protect the public. Indiana Prosecutors will continue to work with and support the lawmakers when they get it right and we will oppose all when they get it wrong. All in the interest of justice.

Association of Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys, Inc.
Jim Luttrull, Grant County Prosecutor
Aaron Negangard, Dearborn and Ohio County Prosecutor
Curtis Hill, Elkhart County Prosecutor
Keith Henderson, Floyd County Prosecutor