INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: READING
R-09-13 Resolution Concerning Statement of Benefits for Jones Popcorn Inc. d/b/a Clark’s Snacks by the Common Council of the City of New Albany
Bob Caesar explains what the popcorn market is looking like. This will add jobs to the community. Passes by voice vote.
---
R-09-14 Resolution of the City of New Albany Approving An Amendatory Declaratory Resolution and Amended Plan of the Redevelopment Commission of the City Of New Albany, Indiana, and Approving an Order of The New Albany Area Plan Commission ... Benedetti
Carl Malysz explains the use of the prevailing TIF district's resources to amend the Park East TIF to issue the bond issue to help Kemper buy equipment that will add many jobs. This is one step, then it goes to the redevelopment commission, who makes the final decision. This, and then an ordinance (below)for economic development bonds (1st reading this evening). Several things are being organized in tandem to result in final votes by the council's first July meeting. Banks request this, too. Immediate benefit is 50 jobs, could lead to a larger addition later.
Diane Benedetti says she has talked to the owner, and it's all very good. We have the chance to upend a possible Ohio destination owing to city hall's work. Also, not taking employees from anyone. It's about new hires to fill a Yum Brands contract. It's a loan that will be paid back monthly.
They make refrigerated dough products.
Caesar: Big benefits, little risk.
Gonder: They probably will be high salary jobs. Not minimum wage jobs.
Unanimous in favor.
---
R-09-15 Resolution To Authorize Funding For The Hiring Of 10 New Police Officers
Price introduces and wants a roll call, presumably to enshrine his "no" vote. Benedetti wants information from Chief Crabtree. It's about merit law and union things; Paul Haub says as long as no ranking positions are lost, there'd be more detective moved up sans rank.
KZ unable to attend the workshop. What will this do? Explains where the men will go and be deployed overall.
Call him for details; too many numbers for me.
KZ wants to know exactly which officers he'll see and where when he's out on the street.
Police explain yet again how the plan will work. KZ missed the special meeting, and evidently didn't do any homework since then, unless of course he's on assignment from Dave Matthews.
Paul Haub recaps it again. 15% commits 85% of the crime, and they'll be targeted.
KZ: Will this money address the "minor" problems that my constituents think are major? Don't say "I think," say "it will."
Haub: We need 90 officers, but you can't afford it. So we'll take 75 until annexation. Eloquently speaks to the need NOT to have more VISIBLE officers on the street. Conversely, we need more invisible officers.
Gonder: Take home cars?
Crabtree: Supports them. Saves time.
Benedetti wants to hear stats next year showing that things have improved.
Please come back and see us again, y'all.
Gonder says the presentation last time was scorched earth policy. Cops won't live here because of all the things that are wrong with us, and now dissects statistics. Takes issue with the scaremongering stats: 9,400 crimes per square mile?
Haub: Check out the web site and check the data (didn't hear the web site). Doesn't think it's absurd because of the averaging between rural and urban stats.
Gonder: You put it up to scare us. Gonder says he's not hearing from his constituents about it (Haub is incredulous) but now says that he supports this because he sees where the money is coming from (the sewer subsidies).
Huh? Yes, they need to come out of the sewers, but this isn't on the table tonight.
Messer speaks in favor and explains the problems he sees as a policeman.
Cops now say they leave town because of the crime rate. Haub sees it as fair criticism. We'll die for the city, but we know what happens ... this is regressing fairly quickly. Still no willingness on the part of anyone present to discuss our stance toward the socio-economic conditions that preface crime. None, zilch, nada. t's just grandstanding central.
Pat McLaughlin: Intimidated by cops who don't feel safe. Also intimidated by the financial situation.
Jeff Gahan: We know you need help, but a million dollar appropriation. Needs to take place during the budgetary process. 2009 budget not yet certified. Given that ... 2010 already short. Tough situation to be discussing tonight.
Kevin Zurschmiede: "My concern is moving forward," so what happens next year when we don't have the money ... leaning toward voting for it. Feels strongly that the city needs to feel safer.
McLaughlin: Annexation?
Benedetti: We'll get 'em in 2010.
Caesar: Would Chief Crabtree consider a business plan for the police department?
In short, he's implying that Crabtree doesn;t know what he's doing. How do we pay for that?
Steve Price, having kept his powder safely dry in grandma's cookie jar to bat clean-up, asks Paul to explain yet again what the lessons of New York and Boston are, even though the police have been explaining this for most of the past year.
Haub explains.
Price: Are the funds there? Yes, with a sewer rate hike. Wanna go on record for that? Fine if you do. If the state comes down, they don't care ... I'm just saying, that's fine whatever y'all think, every department ... what if we default?
Not sure where he's going, but no one is.
KZ: Impact-wise, what's the effect, 1-10 scale?
Haub: Clean it up in months, if we have resources. Worked everywhere else in the world, expected to work here. Defends the program, says it includes self-checks and ratings.
KZ understands that if we hired 150 officers, we'd have maximum impact ... but WE'D STILL HAVE UNREGULATED RENTAL PROPERTIES AND AN ABSENCE OF ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT, KEVIN.
Coffey: #1, always struggling for money, so that's no excuse.
#2, numbers can be adjusted, and I'm not worried about the budget, 'cuz what we're generating as development tonight will pay for it. Says there's plenty of money in EDIT (and more in sewers, but he won't address that).
Vote roll call: Yes: Caesar, Benedetti, Messer, Zurschmiede, Coffey
No: Price, McLaughlin, Gahan, Gonder
Passes 5-4.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
No mention of Messer voting as a police officer? Another huge conflict of interest that is a deciding vote ...
It is the enforcement tone, globally. Is this a city that's proactive or reactive? You make the call.
Calling out KZ, who may have been trying to put something on the record, is valid.
For the record, I believe now is the time to crush the crime wave. Long-term, it will cost us less, improve property values, induce immigration, boost commercial activity. Short measures will doom us to high-velocity spiral into being the sump pump for regional crime.
Let's send it elsewhere, OK?
Good to see ya here, Evan.
I'm not saying I'm upset with the outcome of the vote.
But, it is still an obvious conflict of interest for Messer to vote on this issue. He is a police officer. For all the crap that other council members get on this blog -- such as Price and Coffey -- others' missteps should be noted.
I find Messer voting on this and the cars highly unethical and unprofessional. I wish someone on the council would bring this up.
They (the council) do bring it up, and did so this time, too.
As for the public, I'll concede the majority sees it as a conflict. But Jack Messer abstains on matters of benefits. On matters of policy and resources, he views that as part of the job he was elected to do.
It is nuanced, I agree, but I don't see it as a problem. Others will disagree.
Arguably, on something like this, calling this a conflict would be like saying Jeff Gahan shouldn't vote on matters affecting his district because he stands to gain stature in the eyes of those constituents if he votes the way they want him to. Jack represents the whole city. In fact, he was the leading vote-getter. The voters knew who he was, presumably, and who he works for.
Next year, when Jack retires, should he recuse himself because he's an ex-cop and a pensioner?
Finally, Jack will be happy to hear you out on this thing. He's really easy to reach. Just get his contact info off either of the city Web sites listed to the right on the main page of NA Confidential. If you have any trouble reaching him, call me at the store and I'll help hook you up.
How is not having new cars and more people a benefit that could directly affect Mr. Messer? Does he get a new car? Does he work better hours with a full staff? Does he no longer have to work on the weekends with newbies running around?
I think that is a conflict of interest - and a benefit.
Also, it is very different from your scenario. Gahan, in your example, would be representing the taxpayers and voters, whom he should be representing. I mean, this very topic relates to taxpayer money. Also, the vote doesn't help out his job or benefit his career.
Finally, what does it matter that Messer got the most votes? I could care less if he acts in an unethical manner. What it tells me, it appears, is that readers of this blog like Messer, and thus let him slide on issues like these. There's no doubt in my mind that others on the council would be given a rather rough time if they acted in a similar manner.
Evan, I wouldn't make a conclusion about the blog, but it's just fine if you want to say that I like Jack Messer.
I've talked to Jack about once a month for four years, including about this topic. Debate and discussion.
I measure a person less by their decisions than by their decision-making processes. If someone wants to eliminate taxes in order to eliminate government, well that's what they want. But if they say they want to eliminate taxes to improve government services, then I'll call bullshit.
You call it "an obvious conflict." I suggest it is "an apparent conflict." There is a difference.
If Jack Messer can offer up evidence to me that he has carefully thought this ought, weighed the issues, consulted with others, including attorneys and state guidelines, and then determined what he should and shouldn't vote on - well, then I don't have to agree with him on it. I can respect it.
Yes, I exaggerated the confluence of conflicts using Gahan as an example. But I did that to illustrate that conflict of interest is along a spectrum. It is not an either/or situation. By statute, Jack can vote even on his own police salary - the council votes its own salary, too.
But my most important point to you, Evan, is that it's not a problem for you to sit down with Jack and resolve this for yourself. It's not necessary to drop a blanket over everyone in this blog and begin to beat them with a bar of soap.
By explaining himself, Jack earns my respect. He doesn't always get my agreement or endorsement, but he retains my respect. That's all.
FYI:
As for me, I don’t deny having an ideology, being a polemicist, standing “for” and “against” things, choosing allies and making enemies as I see fit. That will not change, because I didn’t enable this blog to be an impartial arbiter of meaninglessness. I’ll leave that to the journalists (and I’m smiling while writing this).
The Bookseller has aptly explained his position v.v. CM Messer, a position that seems reasonable to me, given that since I've been doing this, Messer's been on what I consider to be the right and proper side somewhere around 65% of the time. Dan Coffey's and Steve Price's percentage is the exact opposite, perhaps even lower.
Does this mean that Messer gets a “free ride”? Not sure, although maybe. Messer’s success rate and Coffey’s tally of failure did not prevent me from writing in opposition to their cynical, politically-motivated flip-flop on the recent "Wendy's" ordinance even though the final score was something I approved at the time.
John Gonder and I agree on most things, and he’s the most cerebral member of this or perhaps any recent council, and yet last week he thrashed around like a fish on the pier. Pat McLaughlin is everything Larry Kochert isn’t, and that’s potentially very good for the city, but right now McLaughlin has nothing remotely resembling a consistent governing philosophy. Perhaps he’ll find one somewhere underneath the mattress. Kochert certainly had one, and it was almost 100% mistaken, and accordingly, I’ll take my chances with McLaughlin, deficiencies and all. So it goes, and all of the proceeding judgments are emanating from applications of my own principles to reality as it appears to me. I try to illustrate why I believe these principles to be worthy, and I make choices along the way.
R
Post a Comment