Saturday, September 15, 2007

Surprise, surprise: Kochert's public hearing a farce, as is the Gang of Four's redistricting proposal.

Where would New Albany be without groundless conspiracy theories … without conniving small-timers … without members of the same political party clawing each other to ribbons over turf that their own cluelessness has reduced to fire sale value?

(Further along than it is at present … but that’s another digression, isn’t it?)



Moments into yesterday’s public hearing on redistricting, one that was rendered largely inconsequential owing to city council president Kochert’s predictable unwillingness to schedule it at a convenient time, the 1st district’s Dan Coffey preemptively sniffed the air from his slumping position on the wrong side of the council table, wagged a jowl and twitched an ear protruding from a face that remained beet red throughout, and began incoherently babbling about a “small group of people dictating policy” and his obligation to “return power to the people.”

Um, thanks, Councilman Cappuccino. When you have time, can you introduce to your nice bunny buddy Harvey?

Ah, but might that small group be as few as four in number… say, the Gang of Four?

And while I have you on the line, what’s with the transparent rancor yesterday? After all, the sacred Coffey Clause lies unaltered at the very heart of the redistricting plan being thrust intemperately forward: Thou shalt not touch this. That’s right, out of six council district, does anyone care to guess which of them is the only one that will be unaffected by redistricting?

Here’s a clue: Barbecued bologna on a shingle.

----

In due course on Thursday, we here at Plaintiff Central were saddened to learn that the council cabal representing Bill “Ancien Régime” Schmidt had been talked down off the gerrymandering ledge, from where we had hoped they’d tumble of their own hubris, and would instead be substituting a far less controversial plan for public consideration at Friday’s hearing.

Not a good plan, mind you, but one less bad than the first, which they’d previously concocted over Sanka and Little Debbies at the Schmidt family’s kitchen table.

Ultimately, we’ll never know how serious the Gang of Four was with respect to its preferred disruptive shenanigans, which included th cowardly gerrymandering of primary election winner Bob Caesar out of his 2nd district home, but as reports continue to trickle in that the embittered lame duck Schmidt is actively campaigning for Caesar’s Republican challenger in geriatric circles, and Kochert keeps slamming in Aebersold clips to replace the blanks he’s been firing, it seems obvious that a coup was given no small measure of thought.

Where I come from, non-support for the party of affiliation tells you something about commitment to “Democratic” principles – and it isn’t about democracy at all. They’re capable of almost anything so long as it achieves a fundamentally self-aggrandizing aim.


Apart from seven council persons (minus Bev Crump and Donnie Blevins) and various public officials, public attendance at the hearing tallied a grand total of seven. A time of day that blatantly disrespected the “working man” that all Gang of Four card-carriers incessantly purport to protect was correctly criticized by 6th district councilman Jeff Gahan, and answered dryly by Kochert. Boredom was the prevailing emotion registered by council members, excepting of course Coffey, whose blood pressure remained dangerously elevated, and who was heard to mutter dark nothings throughout the 50-minute duration.

Sole citizen speaker and plaintiff Randy Smith read aloud his statement, which was published here yesterday, and County Clerk Linda Moeller spoke briefly about the Election Day difficulties that would be engendered by splitting precincts to achieve numerical equality in council districts.

Randy responded by pointing out that Indiana state law does not reference the difficulty inherent in the task, but mandates that, “The boundary of a city legislative body district may cross a precinct line if the districts would not otherwise contain, as nearly as is possible, equal population.” It was also observed that in most Indiana counties, split precincts are a fact of life.

Gahan then expanded on one of Moeller’s comments by distributing maps that show precinct changes under current consideration at the county level. In effect, as the city council rushes to redistrict by the end of November, the county is planning to alter the configuration of the city’s precincts, primarily through adding smaller ones to larger ones to reduce the numerical disparities that all agree complicate the act of redistricting.

Of course, rather than wait until next spring to redistrict after considering these and other factors, Kochert continues to proclaim an urgency that has eluded him throughout his soon to be mercifully concluded council tenure, falsely insisting that the council has been “ordered” by a judge to finish its work before the end of November.

Consequently, expect today’s newspaper coverage to feature Kochert’s talking-point excuse for the Gang of Four’s newfound haste:

“We’re saving the taxpayers money by doing a shoddy job now as opposed to later.”

Or, as in a series of recent reprises of what might as well be New Albany’s official slogan:

“We’ve completely botched it so many times before that now we can’t afford to do it correctly – and can’t possibly be expected to try.”

Thank you, sir. May we have another?

Never mind. The Gang of Four has been giving it to us for quite some time now.

Print media coverage will be appended here when it goes on-line.

Opponents still critical of redistricting plan, by Eric Scott Campbell and David Mann (News and Tribune).

Opponents still critical of redistricting plan, by Dick Kaukas (Courier-Journal).

8 comments:

  1. Where is this map of proposed redistricting located...anyone know?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Seems like the folks over at FOS are upset with us. As Gomer would say,Suprise, suprise, suprise!!

    If I could respond directly over yonder and if I weren't so tired of repeating myself, I could go on at length in disecting their latest post. However, I just don't have the energy to do so.

    I will suffice with answering one of their burning questions with a question. Why did not you fine folks, who have been the concerned citizen watchdogs for much longer than many of us, ask the question of Mr. Henderson during you watch?? Hmmmm???

    ReplyDelete
  3. And as disgustingly dishonest as the whole lot at FOS is, we're fighting for their rights, too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. BG,

    Pardon me, but true as it is, I won't be holding my breath waiting for them to acknowledge that point.

    ReplyDelete
  5. bluegill, now you're just hiding behind the constitution!

    Mr. K and his cohort are trying to sell the idea that they are saving money by rushing through a plan, when in fact, this plan is noncompliant, forcing a trial and its attendant expense.

    And at the risk of repeating myself, there is no agreement between the parties to settle this lawsuit. The plaintiffs want to settle, have made it clear that they can't settle if this plan is put through, and continue to offer a non-trial solution, this saving the city money now and in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  6. “We’re saving the taxpayers money by doing a shoddy job now as opposed to later.”...Larry Kochert

    Larry...you'd save the taxpayers a lot more money, and aggravation,if you didn't do a shoddy job to begin with, and come up with an idea that would be "fair" to the taxpayers.

    One last hurrah for the Gang of Four? They take the show on the road next year!

    ReplyDelete
  7. As the council bungles one task after another, I find it sort of laughable "saving the taxpayers money" in now an excuse for not preforming their duties.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Barring only the unwillingness of "Some" of those sitting on the Council to work on it and do it by the letter of the law, there need be no other taxpayers dollars spent beyond court costs already accrued and a few printer cartridges & few reams of paper.

    Oh-- and the time spent to do it. But wait---they've already been paid for their time to do so haven't they.

    ReplyDelete