Principiis amicus

In case it has escaped anyone’s notice, I’m not a supporter of the recently floated idea that the first step in creating an effective ordinance enforcement regime is to hire a full-time city attorney.

I take issue with the contention that a functioning city court is an irrelevancy, too. In fact, the (re)creation of a city court is the drive mechanism that converts the energy (citations and inspections) into motive power (mitigation of the violations). Without a city court, the fuel will burn and the engine will race, but the gears will not engage and there will be “enforcement” in word, not in deed.

The incrementalist approach is a subtle form of co-optation. Those who hold the purse strings, and thus the reins of power, may yield ground in a strategic retreat (what my esteemed colleague calls a rear-guard action) and concede incremental approaches. If the instant citizen’s group has the persuasive ability or political muscle to achieve the increment, it also has the ability to advocate for a comprehensive solution. Why else would the opponents of ordinance enforcement yield unless the array of forces were able to demonstrate overwhelming sense and/or political power?

Bluegill, whose intellectual rigor I hold in the highest regard, scolds me for being “unhelpful” and “unfair.” I would characterize it another way. In challenging the accepted wisdom, I’ve elicited a spirited defense that otherwise might not have been heard this week. In all fairness, this defense has been mounted without defensiveness. However, good motives and fastidious process aren’t enough. There are indeed forces whose interests would be threatened by a city government with the resources to actually enforce ordinances. They are perfectly happy with things the way they are, and far more experienced at getting their way.

I believe it was Bluegill, again, who stated that New Albany has marketed itself well – to slumlords, that is.

So what is to be made of CM Coffey’s sudden interest in ordinance enforcement, coupled with his newfound zeal for beefing up the force complement of the NAPD? Have the scales suddenly fallen from Councilman Cappucino’s eyes? Has the senior of the Siamese Councilmen had a Road to Damascus moment wherein exposure to the good government ideals of the all-so-nonpolitical summiteers has caused him to see the light and to champion the hiring of a full-time city attorney?

You might guess my answer to that.

First of all, I don’t believe this council is willing to pay the price it will take to retain a qualified attorney who will forgo the fees generated by a part-time private practice. As much as I admire Paul Wheatley, he is a very young man and though appropriately educated and sufficiently seasoned, he is just beginning his career, and thus is available to work for the pittance this council and mayor felt they could pay for the economic development function. Would this council not pinch pennies and hire, say, a lawyer one year out of law school to serve as corporation counsel to a city of 38,000 souls?

But say they will pay what it takes. What does that accomplish? Friend Brandon says making the city attorney full-time will resolve the biggest of the problems, but offers no support for that assertion. Yes, he has been told that referrals for enforcement action sink into a black hole when sent to the city attorney’s office. But has Shane Gibson said that lack of hours is holding him back? Sincerely, has he?

I contend that the city law department, as currently organized, would be sufficient to handle the volume of enforcement actions if the supporting personnel and other resources were properly appropriated. The Gang of Four knows this, I believe. That is why Coffey is willing to play rope-a-dope with the summiteers. Give them what they say they want, hijack the idea so you can claim it as your own, and dance back to the paymasters to report that you’ve mollified the goo-goos. That’s my evaluation.

So, what’s my solution? Rough and dirty, this is it.

1) Add four clerks to the office of the City Clerk. If necessary, assign one of those to the controller’s office to meet statutory requirements. The sheer volume of work to write and send demand letters and citations supports this. But this would not be a new expense for the city government. It would be justified by increased collections. By one report, less than 40% of all citations are being collected, and that is a direct result of a council that refuses to give that office, and that individual, the resources to do her job.

2) Add three new ordinance enforcement officers to work with officer Badger. Maybe you make one a sworn police officer so that warrants can be served by an armed officer.

3) Increase the traffic division to a total of four people. Assign one of those to dig out the highly-secured vehicle ID and registration information for which access is restricted to sworn law enforcement personnel.

4) Write and pass the enabling legislation for a city court now. By law, such legislation must be passed by Dec. 31 of this year, elections held in 2007, and the court begins operations in January of 2008. By law, if we do not pass this now, we must wait until 2010, for a 2011 election, and a functioning court beginning in 2012. New Albany cannot wait six years for a court. The mere fact that CM Coffey preemptively announced his opposition to it last year adds, I believe, a sterling recommendation for this action. Our soon-to-be abogado y licensiado notwithstanding, a city court is the essential piece of the puzzle. Why?

5) To fund 1 through 4. That’s right. The net cost to the city of this enforcement regime is nil. It will require initial funding, but as the city begins to levy and collect fines, seizes and sells properties and vehicles, and cleans up the city, that appropriation will be rapidly offset. All of the above can be paid for out of the hides of the anti-social elements that have endangered this town for so many years.

Is that good enough for you, Bluegill? Fire away and pick it apart all you want. I won’t consider it unfair or unhelpful in the least.