A Candidate’s Progress (8): My question for mayoral candidate Jeff Gahan.

We’ve all become accustomed to legislative scorecards compiled by various lobby groups. Not unexpectedly, these tend to rank the performance of elected officials according to criteria precisely targeted to the wants and needs of the particular interest group doing the scoring.

Here in New Albany, one female voter/candidate goes so far as to pretend she’s a male academic, posting the results of her convoluted canvassing of past city council votes on a blog that refers to the wonders of free speech without permitting any of it to occur.

Just as obviously, individual voters make similar mental calculations according to personal belief systems and preferred policy positions, although when it comes to local matters, perhaps they’re less systematic than the pros, owing to a relative closeness to the candidates, and the very real possibility of soft-pedaling dogma in consideration of proximity.

During the time I’ve been observing New Albany’s city council, it’s my guess that 3rd district council person Steve Price has been wrong three times as often as he’s been right. Conversely, John Gonder (at-large) has been right far more often than wrong. So has Jack Messer, but he’s not running for office again – at least yet – while both Price and Gonder are gunning for re-election.

One of their colleagues, Jeff Gahan, is giving up his 6th district council seat to seek the office of mayor.

(As an aside, I believe it is commendable, if atypical, for an office holder to do what Gahan is doing by risking his currently serviceable sinecure to make a move for something bigger. It takes confidence and chutzpah to put it all on the line).

Both Paul Etheridge and Irv Stumler, Gahan’s opponents in the Democratic mayoral primary, come to us from outside the realm of politics and government service, and consequently neither of them has a legislative voting record for us to examine.

Gahan does, and while I haven’t the time or the interest to quantify his votes in Erika-esque fashion, I trust my gut in saying this: If he has come down on the right side 7 times out of 10, which is likely, those other 3 times have been “fails” of truly epic dimension.

Topping my personal list of these dubious achievements is Gahan’s unexpectedly vehement and eager service in the cause of regressive anti-Constitutional ward heeling way back in 2008, when redistricting and the council’s inexplicable, ongoing refusal to perform its mandated redistricting duties were topics of the day.

The reason I’m bringing this up is not to embark upon an anti-Gahan tirade. Straight up: I like him, and his council tenure has been pretty much exemplary, even if he and I don’t agree on every issue (most prominently, this one).

Furthermore, in raising this issue, I emphatically am not conspiring “against” his mayoral aspirations. In fact, I’m struggling mightily with the comparative merits of the tripartite Democratic field.

So far, neither Etheridge nor Stumler has said anything to inspire me, but Gahan actually has, and the truth of the matter is that I’d like very much to support him in his quest to be mayor – except just now, I cannot.

Not until he addresses and clarifies his role in redistricting, circa 2008, when he blithely dismissed Constitutional imperatives by ensuring that the council would defeat the fairest and most equitable redistricting plan this city has ever seen, and by doing so, knowingly thwarting the intent of a settlement proposed by a Federal judge who knows more about the Constitution than Gahan or me.

Others may have different concerns, and they’re free to ask their own questions. This one’s mine.

Jeff, can you explain the importance of the Constitution and the context of rule of law in the redistricting case of 2008?

Kindly understand that I’m not looking for a contrived answer designed to appease me. It’s just that in private and public conversations at the time, Jeff’s comments with regard to the primacy of the Constitution and the implications of it for rule of law, as elected officials ostensibly are sworn to uphold, were sufficiently ambiguous to merit clarification, especially now that he seeks to occupy the highest elected office in the city.

We might yet agree to disagree on this issue, and if we do, I’d love to be able to cast my vote for Jeff and to encourage others to do the same. I very much want to be able to do this, because during our work together on the steering committee of NA First, I saw a side of the candidate that I had not seen previously. I look forward to his answer.

In a retrospective mode, following is a brief overview culled from a mere two days of NAC posts in 2008.

Wonderfully and delightfully us … and that’s why major surgery is required.

Last evening the city council convened to consider a redistricting ordinance. The ordinance as submitted to the council was derived from the work of a committee. The committee was established for one reason and one reason alone. A previous incarnation of the council had for many years refused to cooperate with mandates set down by the very same Constitution referenced previously, and it had failed in its duty to fairly realign voting districts.

Because the previous council failed so spectacularly to do its job, citizens (of whom I was one) asked a Federal Court to interpret the council’s inactivity. Presiding over that body was a judge, whose job it is to apply Constitutional principles to problems like these, and whose job it is not is to be familiar with irrelevancies ranging from the location of one councilman’s house, whether dogs bark louder before a rainstorm, or the way that one neighbor never really thought highly of the color used by another to paint his house, and always complains about it at the Elks club meetings.

The judge sagaciously considered the previous council’s attitude with regard to its mandate to redistrict, and found it sorely wanting. He examined the previous council’s last-second attempt to implement a redistricting plan contrived in a Geritol-induced haze by the wife of one of its now mercifully retired members, and found that plan sorely wanting, too, because it did not adhere to the principles of the Constitution.

The Constitution. What a concept ... just not here.

In effect, the judge in question laughed the previous council out of court, made the very strong suggestion that it keep the Constitution in mind, and directed it to try again. The committee was approved and was formed, with three at-large councilmen and three community members (only one of whom was involved in the original lawsuit), and the council agreed to consider the results ...

… That is, unless you’re one of the four city council members, including the body’s president, Jeff Gahan, voting against Constitutional principles last evening, and in favor of local self-determination even if it means soiling a parchment all were sworn to uphold.

As ever, the Uncouncilman is “entitled to his opinion” – just not to his facts.

NAC received this e-mail comment earlier today.

In fact, if there is a new lawsuit, I want in as a plaintiff, as I am now pissed and disgusted the way certain councilpersons treat others for attempting to help move this city forward. The committee saved the city tens of thousands of dollars and what they received in return was being accused of politics and, regardless of the fact that they pay property taxes on homes in the city of New Albany, they’re outsiders.

Mere facts without lame excuses and sentimental claptrap ... in New Albany? Are facts even legal?

Jeff Gahan, who was the previous council' s president for two years, now stridently agrees with Price that redistricting is a council mandate, just as it was before, and yet, as we've seen, and as a Federal judge quite forcefully agreed, neither Price nor Gahan ... nor any other sitting council person at the time... was so sufficiently enamored of their Constitutional obligation to undertake redistricting. As best it can be determined, none even mentioned the possibility.