NASH: Council needs to do its duty
The New Albany City Council has accomplished many things in the last few years.
It was able to create a cabaret ordinance keeping the residents of New Albany safe from the Rustic Frog. It was able to pass a novelty lighter ordinance keeping the city safe from impulse purchases at convenience stores. The council also ruled against a zoning board recommendation in order to protect the residents of Lafayette Drive from Frostys and junior bacon cheeseburgers.
Having introduced himself last week, new Tribune columnist Matt Nash wastes no time in taking our City Council to task for their ongoing efforts to protect themselves at the expense of a properly performing republic. His exgesis on the effects of unfair voting districts is incisive, showing how real world harm is done by the Council's chicanery, with some peoples' votes counting much more than others.
A federal case, to be sure. Thanks, Matt.
43 comments:
Many have decried that certain “rights” would be violated if the council did this or that. When the smoking ordinance was being discussed, I even recall one person claiming a constitutional right to smoke.
The constitution guaranties many rights and freedoms. It’s a short document. It’s fairly easy to read and determine what areas are covered. While counterexamples are aplenty, by international and historic standards, the US has done a very good job in making sure that the rights written on the paper actually apply to real life.
While there is no constitutional right to smoke in public and no constitutional right to not have a sewer rate increase, representational government and one-person-one-vote are paramount. This is a real constitutional issue.
I’m heartened to see that it’s not being forgotten.
The Council's story is, they passed a redistricting ordinance in December of '07.
The federal magistrate basically told the Council not to come into court with that plan as a settlement. That put the Council back to square one in the case--or so everyone thought.
While their clear intent, in settling with the plaintiffs, was to repeal that '07 ordinance, it appears that repeal never happened. The Council discovered their "error" and finally sent a signed copy to the County Clerk just a couple of months ago. That plan is still working it's way through the system, as for as I know.
My gut feeling is, the 2011 election is going to be based on the 1990 census. 21 years out of date.
Full disclosure--I was not a plaintiff in the suit but I was a citizen member of the appointed redistricting committee.
Again - do we have any Public Interest Attorneys in Southern Indiana? My limited experience with the "justice" system here reveals a set of officials who's function mostly consists of cycling the low-income population through for abuse, drugs, petty theft, etc...Otherwise you might expect such a small closed system to be controlled by and for the powerful economic interests locally. We still have a colonial justice system in the sense the system protects the interests of the "owner class", which is certainly not to be confused with the "political" class in NA. Nary does one hear of a civil rights case, an environmental protection case, constitutional rights round these parts...etc etc blah. blah.
Sometimes I think there must just be one bad law school in Indiana. Sometimes I just wonder if this the same America I read about in government books as a youngster.
So good luck with all the legal stuff guys, just remember, in Indiana no one has your back.
I did consult an attorney(outside of NA)who does business throughout the state of Indiana. After doing some research his "sum up" remark was:
"Does anyone in New Albany know what they are doing?"
G., again you bring unjustified ad hominem attacks on lawyers.
Lawyers don't bring lawsuits, plaintiffs do. Both the Indiana and Kentucky bars have strong traditions of pro-bono service, which is typically focused on helping people without the means to hire a lawyer.
You don't see the kinds of suits you'd like to see because people like yourself aren't bringing them. Even "public interest" lawfirms usually charge fees or have a funding source.
Thus, you are basically criticizing the legal profession for the public's lack of interest and willingness to put their money where their mouth is. You, or an organized group of citizens, are more than capable of raising money and finding a good lawyer to take any case you want, or perhaps even donate a little money to an existing group who hires legal counsel and takes up such causes.
Instead, it's easier to be an Internet slacktivist and write nasty things about lawyers and law schools than to actually do something about a problem. I understand the frustration, but it doesn't justify the comments you wrote.
Excellent subject and a very well written column. What are the chances that "them people" in the council chambers will understand the issue, much less do something about it? You're off to a great start, Matt.
from personal and long experience B.W.
p.s., B.W., there is also the matter of continquency fee structures. Your last post indicated only $$ would motivate an attorney here.
p.s., B.W., there is also the matter of continquency fee structures. Your last post indicated only $$ would motivate an attorney here.
Louis D. Brandeis, before being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, took a half day each week to offer free legal services to those in need. I think it’s a good model and one which I wish more local attorneys followed. Unlike a century ago, most attorneys today are specialists. While I think Brandeis today would work just as hard for the public interest, I bet he'd be more of a niche player focusing on one or two areas of concern. I’ve been asked to do pro bono work a few times. When it’s been a real estate question, I’ve often tried to help out. However, if you’re wrongly convicted of a crime, my offer to help you would be a disservice since I have no experience in criminal defense. Finding the right lawyer for a case can be an art.
For an attorney, time is money. Time is the only thing attorneys have to offer. Time spent on a public interest case is time not spent having an income. Only about one in three licensed attorneys work in the private law practices. Most attorneys working at non-profits or in the public service do so at a reduced income when compared with their private sector counterparts. If an attorney takes a public interest case at a reduced hourly rate, etc., then I don’t agree that $$ would be his or her only motive.
If a plaintiff is passionate enough about an issue to step forward, it is very commendable. If an attorney is willing to accept that case at a reduced fee, that also is very commendable. However, if the plaintiff is unwilling to share in the financial responsibility for litigating a case, it’s unfair to point the finger at the attorney for being unwilling to do the same.
That being said, it’s my understanding that the redistricting plaintiffs found an attorney willing to litigate the case pro bono. The judge determined that the city’s failure to redistrict was so inexcusable that the judge awarded the plaintiffs’ request for $5000 in attorney’s fees. Some state statutes and local ordinances expressly give standing to citizens to bring actions AND state that the citizen will be awarded attorneys fees if successful in the action. Often these provisions are ignored by the public.
If anyone has a particular issue about which he or she is passion enough to consider being a plaintiff, shoot me an email. I don’t know if I could help, but I’d be happy to do a little research and see if there is a local attorney willing to initiate a case for a modest up front fee.
If that $ amount is correct, the attorney in question was overpaid, in my humble opinion. Not only did the taxpayers have to pay it, they got nothing for their money.
Iamhoosier - yeah, what kind of attorney doesn't follow up a win with enforcement of the order? Why is he not back in court for the second round and presumably his second payday?
When was the last time the plaintiffs asked their attorney to follow up?
I know I don't know all the facts...just have heard bits and pieces...but it's my understanding that the plaintiffs lost interest after winning the "moral victory" even though that hasn't changed anything on the ground.
It's not too late to finish up the job, but the clock is ticking. I'm aware of nothing that would prevent reopening of the case. The judge won't like it that the city still hasn't wrapped this up, especially with an election looming. It's going to require a plaintiff to get the ball rolling again.
There was a consent decree signed. Apparently, all the decree called for was the creation of the committee. That committee was formed, did their duty and the Council turned down their recommendation. The Council believes that the redistricting they passed in December '07 is legal. They feel that they met the terms of the consent decree. Evidently there was nothing in the decree that called for rescinding the the '07 redistricting. I believe the plaintiffs thought that it did. That, IMO, is what their attorney was for and he let them down.
Obviously, I'm not an attorney. Nor was I one of the plaintiffs. However, on the face of it, I'm not sure the Council isn't correct.(Do you know how hard it is to say that). I think the plaintiffs lawyer let them sign a consent decree that really didn't mandate a "true" change.
I guess that the taxpayer will get something for their money. At least the '07 plan is somewhat better than the the one based on the 1990 census. That's assuming that the '07 plan actually does become law. I understand the election board still needs to "pass" it and then it's on to the state.
Still the '07 has 10 times the variation of the "consent" committee's plan.
"That's assuming that the '07 plan actually does become law. I understand the election board still needs to "pass" it and then it's on to the state."
If that doesn't happen in time, I have no idea who a citizen would "go after" for relief.
Until there are new maps, the constitution is still being violated. As long as there is still a constitutional violation, there still is a remedy. Period. If there's still no constitutional plan in place say 14 or 15 months before the next election, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge forced a plan on the city. That is, assuming the plaintiffs asked.
It would take a new case with new plaintiffs, Dan.
I'm not so sure, and neither are some other attorneys with whom I've spoken.
The attorney that I had look into this, said new plaintiffs would be needed. The "faulty" consent decree settled the plaintiff's case. Doesn't mean he is correct, of course, but he does have some experience in this area of law.
Hey, I'll be a new Plaintiff...but then aren't we back to the lack of local legal resource to protect our constitutional rights? Paid or not.
What lack? Hire an attorney.
Bluegill, I'll take your comment as mean-spirited, given the FACT that there are no consititutional law professionals in Southern Indiana I'm aware of. Have you yourself attempted to hire any sort of public interest lawyer? What is your experience with that. Truly would like to know if there's a lawyer within the area who does constitutional law.
You can take it however you like.
OK boys & girls! Enough of the bickering already!
Here are the facts!
A) The judge who issued the opinion in this case is no longer the judge who would hear it if it was brought before this court again. He has moved on to greener pastures.
That being the case, there is no guaranty that the present presiding judge would necessarliy agree with the opinion of the first.
2) The advise from Counsel that IAH refers to here did infact say that a new case with new plaintiffs would have to be brought in order to move forward.
And yes Ethel, said Counsel does deal in Constitutional law issues on a daily basis.
3) The consent decree that we the plaintiffs signed (albeit a toothless one) did infact satisfy the terms of our case as it was presented.
Shame on us and our attorney for letting us get out witted by the opposing party.
But then that's why they call it experience isn't it.
Next time we'll know better than to take a knife to a gunfight!
So ante up or live with what we've got!
I'd like to clarify a few things that have come up in this thread that will hopefully be useful going forward.
First, "contingent fee" means the lawyer doesn't get paid unless the plaintiff recovers. It doesn't mean the case costs nothing. In a semi-complex environmental case, for instance, a plaintiff will need expensive experts and have to pay for other costs associated with the discovery process (depositions, discovery battles, etc.). This is apart from all of the time it takes to investigate, write those briefs, fight various battles in court, etc.
And time it WILL take, because the offending company or company's insurance carrier paying for the defense of the case will hire a large lawfirm that can put multiple specialist attorneys on the case vs. the 1 or 2 good-will lawyers working for the plaintiff.
Thus, even a "contingent fee" case, if even feasible (constitutional cases have no damages...so what contingent fee?) can cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses and costs alone...even if the lawyer is doing it "pro bono," for "public interest," or what have you. Furthermore, attorney's fees are almost impossible to win in most cases, and even then such an award usually doesn't cover costs. So, if you are unwilling to put up money, you are asking a lawyer to spend his or her own money, even if they take the case for free. Winning lawsuits takes money, even if everyone is in it for the cause.
Second, you've got to understand that time is money. Lawyers have nothing to sell but their time. If they are working on a case for the cause, they are not working on another case that pays the bills, plain and simple.
Frankly, in my opinion, donated time should be prioritized for people without money and power. Even "public interest" firms and lawyers motivated only for the cause, as mentioned before, have to have a way to pay the bills, front expenses for cases, etc. If this money is to come out of their pocket, it should go to people without the ability to pay. It is not a question of motivation, it's a question of economics, having the resources to win, and allocation of legal resources.
Regarding the idea of needing a specialist: If you are bringing a complex environmental case, you should have a specialist. If you needed open-heart surgery, you wouldn't hire your kid's pediatrician. It is the same idea. Constitutional cases, however, could benefit from a specialist, but you probably don't need one on most issues (including redistricting). What you need is litigation and case-management skill, not subject-matter skill.
Folks in New Albany, however, have access to tons of lawyers for bringing constitutional cases. Here's why - U.S. Constitutional cases may be brought directly into federal court. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana does NOT require that a Kentucky lawyer be admitted in the state of Indiana to become admitted in the federal court. Thus, most lawyers in the Lou metro area that would be competent to take a constitutional case (litigators, con-law specialists, etc.) can take your case, as can any lawyer in Indy. This means you have plenty to choose from if you are serious. AND, because it's all done via electronic filing now, there really isn't a lot of travel involved for an out-of-town lawyer with the skill, motivation, and resources to help out the cause.
I was ready to be the next plaintiff. I even live in the 2nd district, the most out of balance. My attorney was more than willing. Unfortunately, the "messed" up consent decree greatly complicated matters because redistricting was actually in limbo. Actually, I think it still is in limbo.
So there is no confusion, the attorney was officially working for me. I signed a contract for him to represent me. Not just some friend who was doing a little research on the side.
Iamhoosier - sounds like so many initiatives here. Start something, get to a really muddled place, abandon thing, wait for it to rear it's head down the road when another problem arises and is attempted to be solved, but can't because the older thing was never solved, finished, effected... thinking the rustica ranocchio deal and so many others.
Like I said, G, hire an attorney and go for it.
When the 1-2-3 property tax regime was first proposed about two years ago, Pat Harrison called and invited me to attend a meeting to come up with strategies to fight the proposed legislation. A few days later, a group of about 20 landlords (and maybe three non-landlords) met. The group included several people who owned over 150 rental units in NA. When we left that meeting, there was a plan in place, an agreed time for the next meeting, etc. Not long thereafter, signs starting appearing in yards. Pat sent out regular emails to keep everyone up to date on their strategies.
When a big NA landlord has a problem, how often do you think that landlord sits and waits for some other landlord to fix it?
If you’re a non-landlord, and you want similar action, you need to be as proactive.
“Winning lawsuits takes money” B.W.
unless you're "injured through no fault of your own by someone else's negligence." every other billboard.
ah, I can only dream of being run over by a fully insured vehicle on my way to file my constitutional rights claim. Then I'll be able to afford my rights! How else would I ever be able to protest?
Gina,
Come on, now. They are plenty of free ways to protest. There are free and/or reduced fee ways to legally fight a case. There legal agencies, non profits, firms and individuals who would jump at a "true" rights case, if for no other reason than the publicity.
Bitching about needing money to fight a legal battle is pointless. Health care takes money. Accoutants charge. Most of the really good ones charge more. Food takes money. Transportation takes money--even if it's just shoes. The legal field is no different.
B.W. - my poor attempt to make a point notwithstanding, your claim that it takes money to bring a lawsuit, is on the one hand obvious, as there are costs to everything, and on the other hand frightening to the very notion of a justice system. Aren't Americans committed to the concept of justice regardless of who can pay for it? i mean in reality we DO have such a system. But is that justice?
Where are the attorneys jumping to sue for equal representation in NA?
Where are the plaintiffs? How many attorneys have you contacted? What interest level have you found? Any cost estimates?
To paraphrase a line from a movie:
Who ya' gonna sue?
Aren't Americans committed to the concept of justice regardless of who can pay for it? i mean in reality we DO have such a system. But is that justice?
To echo an earlier note, a lot of people think they have “rights” when in fact there never has been such a right. I’m aware of no time in American history where plaintiffs were promised free legal representation in civil cases.
- You always have a right to hire an attorney.
- If (1) you are charged with a serious criminal offense, and (2) you are indigent, you have a right to an attorney and a right to have the state pick up the tab.
- If you want to litigate a civil case, the state never has picked up the tab on the front end.
- If you earn an average income, and you are charged with a crime, the state never has picked up the tab.
Let me over simplify the world real fast. It is “injustice” when you are charged with a serious crime and cannot hire an attorney and thus receive no attorney. Americans are committed to justice and provide public defenders. It’s not injustice if you can afford your own attorney and choose note to hire one.
In a non-criminal matter, “justice” isn’t black-and-white. I don’t want to pick up the tab every time National Right to Life wants to sue Planned Parenthood, etc. In non-criminal cases, judges have the discretion to award attorney’s fees in cases they deem black-and-white, but most cases aren’t.
To further complicate the money issue, I may be able to hire Perry Mason or Ben Matlock and you may be stuck hiring Jethro or...oh never mind. My thoughts on a certain atty are already known.
Dan - not talking about civil cases.
Bluegill - I'm really not personally looking to be a plaintiff in any suit, I'm 3-4 years behind in my professional life right now. All of this posting I do is for the sake of argument. I've followed and supported those people who brought suit for equal rep. Very sorry to hear it seems derailed. Or is it? No one seems to have a definitive answer. But this issue did speak to a big problem I see here, lack of legal resource to fight back against the many, many , many illegal things happening here daily. I mean take your pick - fight for something. Just stop picking fights with me please. It's counterproductive as a community, ya know.
Not civil cases? Then you’re talking about criminal cases? Prosecutors bring criminal cases and they’re not the first thing that comes to my mind when someone says “public interest” lawyer.
If you’re talking about a non-federal crime, well, we elect the local prosecutor. If he is not bringing a case he should, let’s discuss it. If he isn’t bringing a case he shouldn’t bring, that’s another matter.
Without specifics, it’s hard to discuss.
I recall the ranting letter from “Citizens for Accountability” posted here a few weeks ago. The letter’s author characterizes the prosecutor’s refusal to take the case as some sort of political conspiracy. Well, maybe there just was not case.
G, in resposne to your points:
The cost of bringing a civil suit is an obvious point lost on a lot of people. I think it needs to be made when lawyers get accused of not taking up causes for free.
Is the expensive civil system justice? It's not perfect, but it beats the alternative to settling disputes (AK-47s).
As for auto cases - those aren't free either. The expenses and costs come out of the recovery.
Obviously, those cases have a supply and demand component due to the amount of traffic accidents and the availability of mandatory insurance coverage. This system creates an incentive for insurance fraud, for sure, but traffic accidents devestate a lot of lives, and a lot of folks who would otherwise get screwed by insurance companies for very legitimate claims get needed compensation from those guys doing the auto accident cases on contingent fees. In a sense, it does provide justice and access to the legal system to people in very acute need.
Post a Comment