If nothing else, he balanced the stonewalling: Team Gahan has yet to account for the handily vanished financials of the Bicentennial Commission.

Back in 2011, when the city of New Albany was preparing for its gala Bicentennial celebration in 2013, the guiding force behind the Bicentennial Commission was 2nd district councilman Bob Caesar.

The commission itself was chartered to exist, then to dissolve once the party was over. Here's the ordinance.

BI-CENTENNIAL COMMISSION

§ 33.165 CREATION.
(A) There is hereby created the New Albany Bi-Centennial Commission.
(B) The membership of the Bi-Centennial Commission shall be composed of nine citizen members, five appointed by the Mayor and four appointed by the Common Council. The terms of office of the membership shall be for the period of time commencing with appointment and concluding at midnight on December 31, 2013. The Mayor and Common Council may remove and appoint its members at will.
(C) The mission of the Bi-Centennial Commission shall be to plan, coordinate and implement projects and events to celebrate the city’s bi-centennial. The Bi-Centennial Commission shall work with local citizens, businesses, organizations and institutions to accomplish its mission.
(D) The Bi-Centennial Commission shall adopt by-laws. These by-laws shall address such issues as meeting times and places, rules for the conduct of meetings, and other rules for the efficient operation of an advisory commission.
(E) The Bi-Centennial Commission shall appoint members to an advisory committee that it will work with to engage local citizens, businesses, organizations and institutions to accomplish its mission.

(Ord. G-09-06, passed 3-19-2009; Ord. G-12-01, passed 2-6-2012)

It somehow was determined to publish a book, as eventually to be written by a Tennessee-based freelancer when of course local writers might have been chosen to inject genuine feeling into the project, but then again the Bicentennial itself sank beneath the weight of same-old-generic-planning.

On November 16, 2011 the newspaper laid out the parameters of the tome to come.

New Albany Bicentennial Park moving ahead, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune)

BOOK DEAL

In related news, Caesar updated the redevelopment commission on the status of a bicentennial book being prepared for release next year.

To produce and print 5,000 copies of the book will cost $144,000, Caesar said.

“I know that’s a lot of money, but there’s a lot of work that goes into these,” he said.

Redevelopment funds were used as a loan to the bicentennial commission to get the book started, and Caesar said the advance will be paid back after sales start accumulating.

Standard copies of the book will be sold for $40, but 200 limited editions will be sold for $200 through an invitation process, Caesar said.

As Caesar said the $144,000 will be derived from donations to the cause, proceeds from the book sales will go straight to funding bicentennial activities.

About $107,000 of the production total has already been raised, Caesar said.

He added the book will be extremely detailed and an appropriate representation of New Albany’s history.

“We feel there won’t be any problem selling it,” Caesar said. “These stories will have flavor to them.”

With the preceding as background, and not forgetting that others intimately involved with the workings of the Bicentennial Commission subsequently raised public questions about the group's financial operations (see here and here), allow me to review the chronology detailing the city's refusal almost six years later to release the commission's financial records.

And if the city actually does not possess financial records from an entity chartered by ordinance and subject to the same rules and regulations as any other, exactly what does this say about the city's commitment to any rules or regulations?

Background 2011 – 2014

New Albany 2nd district city councilman Bob Caesar became chairman of New Albany’s Bicentennial Commission at its inception in 2011. In June 2013 former Bicentennial Commission treasurer Vic Megenity asked City Council for an audit of the commission (links above), citing concerns over expenditures which he alleged had not been addressed either by the commission or Mayor Jeff Gahan. Council voted against the audit.

In January 2014 at a city council meeting I asked Caesar about the status of the special Bicentennial book, Historic NEW ALBANY Indiana: By the River's Edge, which was published thanks to a “loan” of indeterminate amount in 2011 from the Redevelopment Commission to the Bicentennial Commission; the book's cost supposedly was $140,000, or $28 per book for 5,000 books).

There was no reply.

2015

A year later, in April of 2015 at another city council meeting, I again asked Caesar for financial records detailing the committee’s activities. Specifically I sought details about the book: How was it contracted, published and sold? What was the status of the Redevelopment Commission’s loan, without which the book wouldn’t have been published at all? Had it been repaid?

At the time, and up to the present day, these books were being routinely gifted by Mayor Jeff Gahan at ribbon cuttings and public ceremonies. If the original press run hadn’t been sold, how many books remained? Where were they being stored? Who paid for them? Was it wholesale or retail?

Publicly in front of his council colleagues at this 2015 meeting, Caesar said he would get the information for me. By early June, I’d heard nothing, so I e-mailed him.

Monday, June 08, 2015:
“Do you recall a few weeks back, when I spoke a city council and expressed interest in learning about the state of the Bicentennial finances? Consider this my follow-up.”

The following day, Caesar replied.

Tuesday, June 09, 2015:
“None of the financials are on line. They are upstairs under a lot of stuff. I can tell you all bills are paid, and paid on time. All reporting to the state is done. And we did not use all of the city money. There was about 5 to 10K that stayed in the city funds … Give me a little time and I’ll get them.”

Roughly 118 days passed, and I tried again in an e-mail on October 5, 2015: “I was reminded that it's been a few months. Do you have this (book) information yet?”

Caesar did not respond to the e-mail, but I saw him at Harvest Homecoming just a few days later and asked whether he received the e-mail. He nodded assent. I told him there was no particular hurry, but I'd love to see the figures. He said okay.

I did not hear from him after that. Ever.

2016 Request and Public Access Complaint

On June 6, 2016 at yet another city council meeting, I used my public speaking time to ask Caesar about my information request.

Now, more than a year later, his memory apparently failed him. He couldn’t recall our previous public chats in the council chamber, or our e-mails correspondence -- and he'd turned petulant.

I reminded him that 418 days was a long time to wait for public records, and he replied, "You know, I think they're on-line now."

I asked him if there was a URL.

He replied: "I don't know."

(The next day I searched, and the records weren’t on line.)

Our last city council meeting conversation on June 6, 2016 concluded this way.

Baylor: "If you're not going to get me these numbers, I can file a FOIA request."

Caesar: "Okay."

Baylor: "So, is that what I must do -- file a FOIA?"

Caesar: "You can if you want to."

Consequently I submitted this request to corporate attorney Shane Gibson.

---

Roger A. Baylor
NA Confidential
1117 East Spring Street
New Albany, Indiana 47150

10 June 2016

Shane Gibson
Corporate Attorney
City of New Albany, Indiana
Hauss Square
New Albany, Indiana 47150

Dear Mr. Gibson:

Under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act § 5-14-3-1 et seq., I am requesting an opportunity to obtain copies of public records that pertain to the financial dealings of the Bicentennial Commission, the creation and operation of which is detailed in New Albany’s code of ordinances (33.165; attached).

The period being requested encompasses the Bicentennial Commission’s inception through the present time.

Details should include all bids, contracts and expenditures for Bicentennial Commission activities, prime among them the process through with the Bicentennial book (“Historic New Albany, Indiana: By the River’s Edge,” by James Crutchfield) was contracted, published and sold, and the status of the Redevelopment Commission’s loan to make publication of this volume possible.

As part of this request, I am requesting to know the current status of inventory with regard to these books. If books remain unsold, how many remain, and where are they stored? Also, when a Bicentennial book is given away at a public ceremony, who paid for it? These invoices are to be considered part of this request.

As part of this request, I am further requesting copies of the official e-mail correspondence between Robert Caesar and other members of the Bicentennial Commission pertaining to these plans and transactions.

I would also like to request a waiver of all fees in that the disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest and will contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of what it cost to honor the city’s Bicentennial, and how these decisions were made, under the aegis of a free press (NA Confidential blog). My request is strictly for news gathering purposes and is not being sought for commercial purposes.

The Indiana Access to Public Records Act requires a response time within seven business days. If access to the records I am requesting will take longer than seven days, please contact me with information about when I might expect copies of the requested records.

If you deny any or all of this request, please cite each specific exemption you feel justifies the refusal to release the information and notify me of the appeal procedures available to me under the law.

Thank you for considering my request.

Sincerely,

Roger A. Baylor

---

On June 16, 2016 Gibson acknowledged my information request and stated that there would be a response by July 8, 2016.

July 8 came and went. Approximately three months later, having received no communication of any sort from Gibson, I sought the opinion of the Indiana Public Access Counselor, who accepted my complaint, informed Gibson about it, and set a date of December 5, 2016 for the counselor to hand down a decision.

Then on November 30, with the access counselor’s ruling imminent (both Gibson and I received an e-mail to this effect), Gibson finally replied.

In essence, he said I could have only what I didn’t ask for, and as for the rest of the financial records of the Bicentennial Commission, these were unavailable: “The city does not possess the above referenced items.”

To summarize, the city had formed a commission to spend several hundred thousand dollars. Caesar conceded they were in his possession. He would not produce them, and presumably because a councilman was keeping public records in his garage, attic or at the landfill, the city could not produce them either.

To reiterate: Given the intent of Indiana's public access laws and the obligation of city officials to produce information when requested, Caesar's and Gibson's tandem obfuscation constituted a thumbing of noses at the law. In 2016 I chose not to pursue the issue any further; I had a life to live and things to do, and 600 days is a long time to wait for what should have taken a person with a conscience roughly ten minutes to produce.

Thus I conclude with the same question I've been asking all these years: If Gibson, Caesar, Gahan and whomever else participated in the wretched shamefulness worked this hard to avoid providing information about a "mere" three hundred thousand dollars, to what lengths will they go to duck and over when the sums get real?

You can do as you please, but I won't vote for people who can't be trusted.

Team Gahan's failure to fulfill open records requests? That's Gahan's political conspiracy against transparency, and it's HIS problem, not anyone else's.

Reader writes about River Run: "I was under the impression public records HAD to be made public."

Yesterday we examined yet another instance of City Hall foot-dragging over public records requests.

River Run Family Water Park: Why won't the city of New Albany comply with the law and grant Randy Smith's public records request to view the financials?

Once again the city's corporate attorney Shane Gibson oversees Team Gahan's activities in a manner indistinguishable from William Barr's, but let's move ahead to a comment by regular blog reader RW:

"I was under the impression public records had to be made public. Any newspaper can request these be given for we the people. Am I incorrect?"

You are correct in theory, but if governmental entities don't comply, there isn't a pathway to compel them short of a lawsuit. Hence the traditional "Fourth estate" role of the newspaper in making issues like this public, a task which our biased Jefferonsvile-centric News and Tribune typically refuses to exercise;  reporters show interest, but management likes Jeff Gahan's advertising income a bit too much.

And yes, there is the Indiana Public Access Counselor, who can make rulings pro or con, but enforcement mechanisms are lacking. Gahan's sycophantic city hall is a persistent violator, but again, short of hiring a lawyer and seeking a judge, little can be done to bring them to the table.

Obviously this needs to change. In Gahan's case, the handiest expedient is underway as we speak: Election 2019, and an opportunity to drain the swamp.

River Run Family Water Park: Why won't the city of New Albany comply with the law and grant Randy Smith's public records request to view the financials?

Campaign finance implications, too.

Today we have two related topics.

Second, there's a question and answer session with a citizen who is being stonewalled by the city with respect to a public records request.

But first, some background on the subject of the request: River Run Family Water Park. In 2013, NAC's Jeff Gillenwater did what the newspaper refuses to do, then as now -- namely, research:

Water on the brains: Much less for far more will keep us swimming in it.

Unlike some voluntarily voiceless council members, I bothered with a smidgen of research into how comparable cities have handled comparable situations.

Six years later, with River Run in its fourth season of non-transparent operation, we spotted an example of selective municipal reasoning:

GREEN MOUSE SAYS: Why does City Hall demand financials from the county parks department when it eternally refuses to divulge its own River Run Gahan Water Dome numbers?

To the Green Mouse's knowledge, the city has steadfastly resisted releasing the financials of the water slide for four years, almost surely because they're not pretty, or contain buried land mines; for instance, how is the aquatic acreage connected with the new fire station's monthly disbursements?

Now for the facts of the city's public records request refusal, as revealed in the following interview conducted by NA Confidential with Randy Smith, New Albany resident, taxpayer and owner of Destinations Booksellers.

---

NA Confidential: Randy, when did you submit a records request? To whom was it directed?

Randy Smith: I hand-delivered the request (dated August 6) on August 7, 2019 to Linda Moeller, controller for the city of New Albany. I did not request copies of these records at that time – only access to them to inspect and record the information for further use.

NAC: Why did you make this records request?

RS: My purpose is to analyze the financials of River Run Family Waterpark (RR) and to share my findings with the public.

NAC: What did you request of the city toward your aim of analyzing River Run’s financials?

RS: I requested access to the following records dating from the June 2015 to the end of July 2019:

REVENUES
1. Monthly revenue from admissions to RR.
2. Monthly revenue from concessions sold at RR.
3. Any other revenues from any source resulting from the use of RR each month.
4. Monthly reports to the Indiana Department of Revenue for sales taxes collected, reported, and remitted with respect to the operation of RR.

EXPENSES
1. Monthly expenditures/claims for utilities, including water, sewer, electric, gas, telephone, internet, or any other like expenditures related to RR and/or metered billing for each month for each category.
2. Monthly wages, salaries, and benefits for each person paid for work at RR, including professional, full-time, part-time, temporary, employee, paid contractor, or person paid, regardless of how that person’s position is designated.
3. Reports of allocations of payroll and benefits for administrative personnel whose duties include supervision or operation of RR for each month.
4. Reports of allocations of payroll and benefits for personnel from other city departments whose time has been spent in the operation or maintenance of RR, including public safety officials.
5. Expenses for maintenance conducted by contractors not employed by the city.
6. Expenses for consumables (other than utilities) necessary to the operation of RR.
7. Expenses for food and non-food items necessary to conduct concessions operations at RR.
8. Vehicle and equipment expenses that can reasonably be allocated proportionally to the operation and maintenance of RR.

NAC: Under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act, citizens are entitled to a response within 24 hours of receiving such a request. Were you contacted within 24 hours as stipulated?

RS: Yes, Moeller’s initial acknowledgement to my note came on August 7th when I handed it to her. She observed that the city has its own form, only slightly different from the official state form. She said my form complied.

On the 8th I followed up by e-mail, indicating that while it might take time to pull together all the information I’d requested, I am especially interested in the sales tax returns to the Department of Revenue, which would take almost no time to produce; I could even come down to the City County Building immediately and inspect them.

At this point (August 9) she replied.

Randy,

I was out of the office yesterday and was getting ready to respond to your public records request dated August 6, 2019. Within 10 days you will be provided with the materials requested or a status update.

Linda Moeller

NAC: To be clear, on August 9 you were told that within 10 days the request would be honored, or a “status update” given. Have you heard from Moeller since then?

RS: No, I have not.

NAC: That’s approximately 72 days late, isn’t it?

RS: Yes, it is. It’s important to understand that the stipulated 10-day wait is purely arbitrary. With respect to sales tax records, while it might take me a few minutes, my own business can provide copies of every single sales tax return for the past 15 years. The major limitation on that is the time it takes to change from page to page of my returns history.

I also can't understand the use of the term "available." Why would not these records be "available" almost immediately? Certainly the 2018, 2017, 2016, and 2015 FY records are immediately available, right? Obviously the June and July 2019 numbers wouldn’t have been compiled, but why wouldn’t these numbers for previous years be right at hand?

NAC: Is there any mechanism for redress in cases like this?

RS: In view of the city’s non-responsiveness, I have sought the assistance of the state’s Public Access Counselor.

NAC: As of this writing, you’re not the only citizen to have requested the River Run financials and been refused. The city council evidently has seen only limited numbers for the past four years. What’s the principle at stake here?

RS: I think we all have the right to know how much it’s costing us to operate this facility. State law says we have that right. In other states, laws like the APRA are called “Sunshine” laws, in the belief that sunshine, or transparency, is a guard against misfeasance and malfeasance. And a suspicion of corruption is not a requirement. How a city spends its money is a legitimate public question.

Since I’ve received no formal response from the Gahan administration, I literally can’t say why these records remain secret. I am left only to surmise.

NAC: Do you think River Run is losing money?

RS: That’s actually beside the point. The city’s water recreation facility probably loses money — a lot of money. That’s OK. Elected officials can choose to lose money to provide a wading pool, splash pads, waterslides, and a “lazy river.” Those of us who thought the “pool” was a poor use of borrowed money can but criticize it now.

But, we are entitled to see the numbers.

For the record: Three prompt acknowledgments of receipt, with city-subsidized Develop New Albany persisting in unresponsiveness.

As noted recently, NA Confidential asks many questions, and regular readers know all too well that not all these questions are answered.

For more than two years, Bob Caesar and the city of New Albany have combined to stonewall every effort we've made to explore Bicentennial Commission finances.

The history of our public records requests from City Hall is one of unending futility; the legal department merely giggles amid blatant subterfuge, partial answers and related diversions.

Adam Dickey's disney-fried Democratic Party has blocked us from social media communications channels. All the while the Southern Indiana-based chain newspaper looks the other way, and the one in Louisville seldom looks this direction at all.

But we persist in the belief that even when savagely rebuffed, a trail of post-it notes in the form of comments on various public records (meeting minutes, etc.) might some day assist the reparations committee and federal investigators when the New Gahania Wall finally crumbles.

Following are updates on the most recent round of information requests, with the oldest coming first.

---

Develop New Albany is playing hard to reach.

November 20: GREEN MOUSE SAYS: We keep trying to ask DNA about the Taco Walk, and DNA keeps making like Jeff Gahan on the down low.

To date, I haven't received a reply to any of these three separate (August) queries. However, I think the message was received, because at some point in late September or early October, the e-mail addresses of DNA board members were scrubbed from the web site. How very Gahanesque, hence this public notice of intent.

If you're keeping score, NAC's total since the Taco Walk is four unanswered e-mails, in addition to our apparent removal from the notification list for monthly merchant meetings. I've asked for clarification of the latter ... and received no reply.

Who do they think they are, anyway?

Wait -- don't answer that.

---

The good news is that both redevelopment officials replied promptly today to yesterday's questions.

November 29: For the record, my letter to redevelopment officials v.v. Dan Coffey's for-pay parking lot on city property during Harvest Homecoming.

My question: Did the Redevelopment Commission, or someone on the city’s redevelopment staff, or one of you, or the mayor himself, issue explicit permission for Coffey to use public property for parking cars during Harvest Homecoming?

If yes, is there a record?

If no, then doesn’t this mean it was illegal, and if so, what does the city propose to do about it?

First, the interim director.

Mr. Baylor:

Please let this serve as notice of receipt of your email dated November 29. Our office will review and research this matter and provide the appropriate response and/or update within 10 days.

Shane L. Gibson
Corporate Counsel
City of New Albany

Then the board member/secretary.

Dear Mr. Baylor: Thank you for your response. I apologize for the delay in getting back with you as I have been out of town on business the past several days. I believe City Attorney Shane Gibson has responded to your inquiry and will be providing you the information you requested. If you have any questions, please direct them to Mr. Gibson at 812-948-5333.

Sincerely,

Adam Dickey
Board Member
New Albany Redevelopment Commission

Of course, the bad news is that similarly unctuous responses have come our way before, to be followed by a staggering boatload of nothingness.

However, as opposed to DNA's injudiciousness, these purely bureaucratic notes of receipt are better than none at all.

---

Finally, Linda Moeller also was very prompt.

November 29: For the record, my letter to the city controller v.v. payroll claims.

My request concerns a specific claim, as follows:

CLAIMS
Payroll Claims: 1,058,603.61
(Bank 2)

Can you please provide me with an itemized listing of these claims?

---

Mr. Baylor,

I am in receipt of your email request for copies of payroll claims that were approved by the BOW on November 7th and will provide or give you a status update within 10 days.

Linda Moeller
Controller, City of New Albany

I harbor no illusions, and yet the efforts will continue.

Secrecy in the Mt. Tabor Road beak-wetting project? Shane will telex the down-low bunker and get right back with you.

Regular readers already know the pathetic past record of the city with respect to NA Confidential's public access requests.

Team Gahan treats them as a joke.

However, the larger issue is one of secrecy -- and that's why the city corporate attorney is keen to deflect the charge before it's even made.

I didn't attend last evening's city council meeting (did the newspaper?), but thanks to Mark Cassidy, we now know that the QRS riverfront property mentioned last week as part of a potential new park site -- one that supposedly couldn't get off the ground until the Horseshoe Foundation's grant -- already belonged to the city.

In fact, it was purchased last year, and not by parks department, which is skint. Rather, it was bought by the sewer utility.

Raise your hand if you knew about any of this.

That's what I thought. 

The routine is very clear as we enter Year Six of the Chronicles of New Gahania. Planning and decisions are back channel, reserved for the usual suspect engineering and contracting firms, and approved by appointed boards with minimal participation by elected officials. When we hear of them and are asked to contribute "public" input, the plan's already finished.

And:

The reason why the absurdly named Mt. Tabor Road Restoration and Pedestrian Safety Project keeps hitting "road" blocks is precisely because there have been uncommonly dogged efforts on the part of citizens to contest it, in part owing to information being consciously slowed to a trickle by the city.

This is the reality, and the city's wounded murmurings are offensive.

New Albany violated public access law three times on Mount Tabor Road requests, by Elizabeth Beilman (Kowloon Hanson-uuuune)

Records delay irks property owners

NEW ALBANY — The city of New Albany has violated the Indiana Access to Public Records Act on at least three occasions in the past year by missing deadlines on records requests made by residents of Mount Tabor Road.

Property owners along the road that is undergoing the city's restoration project said they weren't able to get information in enough time to present educated counter-offers to buyers through the process of eminent domain.

Now, the city has filed condemnation against their properties. When the purchase price is negotiated in court, these residents worry they won't have the facts needed to back their cases, and are unsure what the city's final plans for the project entail.

"We can't do a true business agreement without knowing what we're getting into," said resident Kelly Feiock, who lives on the corner of Mount Tabor Road and Klerner Lane.

Feiock is one of three property owners along the corridor who have filed complaints with the Indiana Public Access Counselor's office. In some cases, though not all, the office ruled the city violated the law. One other property owner has not submitted formal complaints but has indicated the city didn't follow public access law in response to his request.

"I think they could do a better job," Indiana Public Access Counselor Luke Britt said. "I don't know the circumstances, either. Are they getting 20 different requests and they let one or two slip?"

City Attorney Shane Gibson in an email statement said he doesn't believe New Albany has been secretive.

Rick Fox speaks the prettiest public access language I've ever heard. Is that Mark Seabrook I hear chortling?

In the summer of 2013, when the Floyd County Health Department claimed years-long precedent for its sudden decision to require temporary food permits of beer vendors operating under supplemental catering permits, I filed a state public access request. The FCHD's reaction was typical.

The hearing is tomorrow, but the Floyd County Health Department is stonewalling about its public access obligations.

Just before the health board hearing in July, the department finally, grudgingly complied to the bare minimum of its capabilities -- and that's a low arc, indeed.

ON THE AVENUES: NABC before the FCHD Board 3.

 .. As for the Public Access request, after a whole month went by with neither a reply nor an explanation from the FCHD, yesterday I had no choice but to file a formal complaint with the Public Access officer in Indianapolis. The complaint was given priority status owing to today’s hearing. Yesterday morning, Dr. Harris was sent notification of my complaint, and subsequently copies of a mere six citations for five years’ time were faxed to us, sans explanation, which beggars belief, but it remains that not one of them pertains to beer.

At the hearing itself both Dr. Tom "House" Harris and board attorney Rick Fox openly mocked NABC's public access request as being incorrectly worded -- when the intention was crystal clear to the public access officer in Indianapolis, who had to remind them of their obligation to answer.

You already know that the Attorney General of the state of Indiana has found the FCHD's justifications to be obfuscations. Here's a reminder, just in case.

N and T: "State: Floyd County Health Department shouldn’t require permit."

Throughout the health department's 2013 usurpation of power, and as we await events of the coming year, during which Dr. Tom has vowed to ignore the AG's ruling, there has been a consistent thread: The actions of the Floyd County Health Department are inseparable from the governmental "culture" of the county's elected (and sometimes appointed) officials, especially the pair of Republicans occupying two of three chairs as our Commissioners.

That's why I've urged local gendarmes to take missing persons claims seriously.

ON THE AVENUES: The fruitless search for adults in county government.

The reason I'm rehashing this old ground? It's because of recent comments from Rick Fox (same attorney, different governmental client), as described in a News and Tribune article.

Floyd County auditor in court over public records; Woman claims she was denied access to Camm trial documents, by Gary Popp

NEW ALBANY — Floyd County Auditor Scott Clark was in court Monday following a claim that his office had failed to make public records available to a woman who had requested the documents.

Kathy Lowe, Harrison County, filed a motion of default judgment in March that led to the civil hearing in Floyd County Circuit Court.

Lowe claims Clark has dismissed her numerous attempts to obtain claims and invoices related to the three David Camm trials and the renovation of the Pine View Youth Shelter and Government Center.

Lowe’s accusations are supported by the Indiana Public Access Counselor ...

And then this:

... Fox said Lowe’s inference that Clark has not complied to her requests is also related to her failure to be clear with what documents she wanted to receive.

“There is an ambiguity as to specifically what it is she was looking for,” he said. “What we ultimately want out of the case is to comply with what her requests are.”

Another public access request, and another snide insinuation from Fox that the principle of public access is valid only when couched in specifically phrased legalese, preferably the sort mastered by lawyers as opposed to laymen. Of course, this is not the intent of Indiana's public access statute.

My point ... once again, with feeling ... is that the profound rot in county government reflects the very apex of the Peter Principle, where Mark Seabrook and Steve Bush preside. From there it filters inexorably down, or to be more accurate, drips over the sides like a plugged commode reeking of rancid sewage.

And one of them wants to be sheriff? Jeeebus help us.

In the search for Instigator Zero, expect papers to be shredded.

Irrespective of the Floyd County Health Department board's decision on NABC's appeal, as presumably reached Thursday evening, and expected to be revealed early in the coming week, there are outstanding issues still to be played out.

And rest assured, I like to play.

One is the cavalier attitude of Dr. Harris and counsel toward the department's obvious foot dragging in the matter of our public access request. Not only did insultingly minimal compliance (a grand total of six records produced in a period beginning 9/22/12) come at the last possible moment prior to the hearing, but it was accompanied by Dr. Harris's sneering suggestion that I hadn't phrased the request correctly.

Interesting, isn't it?

If the request wasn't written adequately, why was it sufficient grounds for the public access office in Indianapolis first to reply to me in depth, and later to approve and expedite our formal complaint against the health department for its delay in complying with the request?

Perhaps Dr. Harris answers only to one or the other God, and not the public access arm of Indiana government.

Another is the question of exactly when and why the health department connived its decision to usurp decades of Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission precedent and to declare expansionist activism by asserting regulatory control of alcoholic beverages. In its minimalist, condescending response to our public access request, the health department conceded in effect that its interest in temporary food server permits in the context of draft beer at ATC-sanctioned events began around the time of June 14, 2013.

From the start, we've countered: Why this, why now, and why NABC?

The department's obtuse and Orwellian reply has been to pretend that it's been this way all along, but seeing as its own records illustrate otherwise, aren't we obliged to pursue the next logical step of tracing the statutorily indefensible move to its actual source? Isn't that what any epidemiologist worth his or her advanced degree would seek to learn?

It isn't about smoking bans, but smoking guns.

Consequently, I'm thinking that a fresh, new public access request needs to be filed, this time asking for all health department meeting minutes for the last five or so years. These might read depressingly like The Lancet ... and they also might be highly instructive, don't you think?

Let's see if a formal complaint will do the trick.

In the time elapsed (less than two hours) since my posting earlier this morning, here is what has happened:

• The Indiana Public Access counselor has answered my e-mail.
• I have filed a formal complaint against the Floyd County Health Department with Public Access, noting that the department has not provided a five year history of temporary permit citations, as I requested one month ago, and has not provided an explanation to me. 
• Given the hearing date tomorrow, I've asked for priority status.
• As of 9:10 a.m., the Public Access office is processing my complaint. 

To reiterate: All this has occurred in less than two hours, while in the 40 days since the first citation was written on June 14, the health department has been unable to issue me a formal notification of the hearing date (as stipulated by its own enabling ordinance), or to honor an Indiana Public Access request.

At this point, I'm not much interested in what Dr. Tom's political bosses in county government think about this. I'm curious whether they think at all.

Update: as of 11:00 a.m., Dr. Harris has been served his papers by the state.

The hearing is tomorrow, but the Floyd County Health Department is stonewalling about its public access obligations.

Update: Let's see if a formal complaint will do the trick.

It appears that NABC's hearing before the Floyd County Department Board is to occur on Thursday, July 25, at 5:30 p.m. at the department's headquarters bunker on Bono Road. The only reason I know this is that it was relayed to me verbally by the department's attorney via my lawyer.

And yet, as the department's own playbook states:

§ 115.41 APPEALS SECTION.

(A) An operator aggrieved by an order is entitled to a review of the final order before a Hearing Board by filing a written request therefore with the Health Officer (Secretary of the Board of Health; see I.C. 16-20-1-10). The written request must be sent by certified mail or by hand delivery to the Health Officer at 1917 Bono Road, New Albany, Indiana 47150, during regular hours of operation, and must be received within 15 days after the date such order is issued. The written request must set forth with specificity the factual and/or legal grounds for appeal, and only those matters set forth in the written request may be argued before the Hearing Board.

(B) Upon the Health Officer's receipt of such request, the Hearing Board shall hear the matter in an open hearing after at least five-days' written notice of the time, place and nature thereof. The time shall be measured pursuant to the Indiana rules of court. (A shorter period of time for hearing may be requested and granted in the sole discretion of the Chairperson of the Floyd Board of Health, provided that such shorter time must permit compliance with I.C. 5-14-1.5.)

(C) The notice of the hearing date shall be served upon the operator requesting the review by delivering such notice to the address of the bed and breakfast establishment, retail food establishment or temporary food establishment listed on the permit application or by facsimile or to such other address (if within Floyd County), as the operator shall designate in the letter of request to the Health Officer. Such delivery may be made by leaving the notice at the required address or by regular U.S. Mail.

(D) The Hearing Board shall establish the rules of procedure for the hearing and shall advise the operator of the same prior to the start of the proceedings. Such rules shall provide that an order may only be supported, in whole or in part, by a majority decision of the Hearing Board.

(E) Within seven days from the conclusion of the hearing, The Hearing Board shall make written findings of facts and conclusions concerning the final order or determination and shall deliver the same to the operator requesting the review by delivering the same to the address of the bed and breakfast establishment, retail food establishment or temporary food establishment listed on the permit application or by facsimile or by had delivery to such other address (if within Floyd County), as the operator shall designate in the letter of request to the Health Officer. Such delivery may be made by leaving the notice at the required address or by regular U.S. Mail.

(Ord. G-08-14, passed 5-5-2008)

Previously I had designated my home address. I've received no letter from the department -- not at home, and not at either NABC location. The notice is supposed to go to me. What gives?

Interesting, isn't it?

Since the Orwellianism began on June 14, NABC has been expected to comply with a previously unknown, ad hoc "law" compelling us to purchase temporary food serving permits to pour beer from kegs at events for which we've already obtained a permit from the Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission, as conjured by a health department functionary likely basing his or her interpretation on a solitary nebulous word ("drink") that the entirety of Indiana state precedent regards as irrelevant owing to the existence of the ATC and its clearly defined regulatory function ... but when it comes to my request for a hearing, the health department hasn't yet notified me in writing of the date, as its own charter says it must ... and when the topic is my Indiana state public access request for records, nothing has been done for a whole month.

June 22: Roger has issued a Indiana Public Access request to the Floyd County Health Department.

June 27: My note to the Indiana Public Access Counselor, informing the office of my request of the Floyd County Health Department.

Looks like a return e-mail to the public access counselor is merited. Here's what he had to say back on June 27:

At this point, the (Health) Department is required to produce all records responsive to your request, minus any applicable exceptions, within a reasonable period of time. See IC 5-14-3-3(b). The public access counselor has stated that among the factors to be considered in determining if the requirements of section 3(b) have been met include, the nature of the requests (whether they are broad or narrow), how old the records are, and whether the records must be reviewed and redacted prior to disclosure. The APRA requires an agency to separate and/or redact confidential information in public records before making the disclosable information available for inspection and copying. See I.C. § 5-14-3-6(a). Section 7 of the APRA requires a public agency to regulate any material interference with the regular discharge of the functions or duties of the public agency or public employees. See I.C. § 5-14-3-7(a).

However, Section 7 does not operate to deny to any person the rights secured by Section 3 of the Access to Public Records Act. See I.C. § 5-14-3-7(c). The ultimate burden lies with the public agency to show the time period for producing documents is reasonable. See Opinion of the Public Access Counselor 02-FC-45. This office has often suggested a public agency make portions of a response available from time to time when a large number of documents are being reviewed for disclosure. See Opinions of the Public Access Counselor 06-FC-184; 08-FC-56; 11-FC-172. Further nothing in the APRA indicates that a public agency’s failure to provide “instant access” to the requested records constitutes a denial of access.

And here's what I wrote to him today. :

Dear Joe,

Here's a status report.

Attached is the only comment I've received to date from the Floyd County Health Department as to my request for public records. It's been just shy of a month.

In fact, it will be month tomorrow since the response letter from Dr. Tom Harris was dated, and perhaps not coincidentally, tomorrow (July 25) is NABC's appeal hearing before the department's board -- the very hearing for which I need the public access records in order to help make our case.

It's fairly obvious that the health department is evading its obligations,
as you outlined previously.

What's my next step?

Thanks you for your assistance,

Roger

What are the odds that as we enter the board room on Thursday, we'll be handed a stack of records?

Can this sham get any more ridiculous?

Concert tonight, but the PourGate saga continues as we prepare to vend Progressive Pints under protest.

Tonight will be the fourth installment of the city's summer concert series at Bicentennial Park in downtown New Albany.

The band is Quiet Hollers, and the format is precisely as before: 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. For the third consecutive Friday, NABC and its sub-caterers will be serving adult libations under explicit protest, pending an appeal of the Floyd County Health Department's decision to enhance its revenue by harassing drinks dispensers who already possess all necessary temporary permits from the Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission.

The most recent development came yesterday, with a prompt e-mail reply to me from the state's Public Access Counselor. So far, the health department is complying with the requisite deadlines for disclosure, according to the process for providing the information I've requested (a five-year history of temporary food service permit citations).

Earlier in the week ...

On Monday morning, I provided readers with a complete update from the front: Updating the Floyd County Health Department's "Beer Pour War" of 2013.

Not unsurprisingly, it turns out that searching the Floyd County Health Department's web site for the word "beer" yields zero results: Isn't this an indictment of our entire American society?

Ground Control "reached out" to Doctor Tom: "In an effort to facilitate seemingly scant communication," my e-mail to Dr. Harris.

He didn't reply, but a subordinate did, informing me that NABC's request would serve as a brilliant example of county government's habitual in-breeding: Health Department refers public access request to same attorney who advises commissioners -- making a full circle.

Having received valuable advice from an unlikely source, it was time to notify the state's ombudsman -- just to preclude stonewalling: My note to the Indiana Public Access Counselor, informing the office of my request of the Floyd County Health Department.

That's where we stand as another week concludes, and I'll venture only one further observation: Public opinion overwhelmingly is registering disdain for the health department's usurpation in this instance.

Strangers have been stopping me on the street to chat about the situation, and in spite of the impetus for this non-food based harassment landing squarely on one side of the county's political aisle, what I'm hearing is firmly bi-partisan annoyance with the department's excesses ... at all levels.

Significantly, public opinion mirrors my own, in the sense of support for the health department's mandated surveillance of food and food preparation, but exasperation as to its frequent over-reaching and meddling in areas outside its statutory authority.

That's what this is about. The state ATC regulates drinks; health departments regulate food. It's as simple as that. No other health department in the state is laying claim to what Dr. Harris sees as is his department's sudden obligation to control temporary draft beer pours. It seems that the opinion of his fellow bureaucrats is against the FCHD, too. Shouldn't that tell you something?

My note to the Indiana Public Access Counselor, informing the office of my request of the Floyd County Health Department.

Just in case of stonewalling. 

Having received a choice bit of unsolicited advice, for which I'm quite grateful, I've sent the following note to the State of Indiana's Public Access Counselor, providing details of the ongoing PourGate imbroglio, wherein the Floyd County Health Department decides to begin inventing interpretations from thin air

It may at last be time to contact the state health department, although so far, at least two calls have been made, with no coherent reply.

This is becoming somewhat fun.

-----

Good day,

I have sent the following letter to the Floyd County Health Department. The reply I've gotten after four business days is that my request has been forwarded to the board's attorney for review, and that the attorney will be contacting me. I am confused, given that your template shows replies and actions emanating from the agency itself, not the agency's attorney.

I am making this request because recently, for the very first time ever, the Health Department has been enforcing temporary food service permits for beer vendors, hitherto under the control of the ATC and permitting procedures of the ATC. The Health Department is not being forthcoming in providing evidence of some as yet undisclosed change in the law. I am asking for five years' citation history in order to determine whether the department's claim to have been enforcing this "all along" is accurate.

Thanks for you input into this situation.

-----

Roger A. Baylor
1117 E. Spring Street
New Albany IN 47150
502-468-9710

June 21, 2013

Floyd County Health Department
Attn.: Dr. Tom Harris
1917 Bono Road
New Albany IN 47150
(Hand Delivered)

Re: Public Records Request

Dear Dr. Harris:

The Floyd County Health Department is a public agency as defined by Indiana Statute. Pursuant to Indiana Public Access statutes (Indiana Code 5-14-3), I am requesting copies of all citations and/or tickets issued by the Floyd County Department of Health to any vendor, person, company and/or individual regarding “Temporary Food Service Permit” for the last five (5) years. In addition, I am requesting that each citation and/or ticket be identified as to whether those cited were serving food or alcoholic beverages.

If there is a cost associated with this request, please inform me of the amount. I look forward to the response and compliance with this request. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Roger A. Baylor

Health Department refers public access request to same attorney who advises commissioners -- making a full circle.

Dr. Harris has not replied to the e-mail, but there was a prompt response from a subordinate. 

Do you think they'll grant me a stay of obfuscation until vacation's finished? Gee, I really hope so. 

---

Mr. Baylor,

I have attached a copy of your permit that you didn't receive. Please let me know if you would like us to send you a hard copy of the permit.

I have also attached a copy of FCHD's response to your public records request. A copy of that letter has also been mailed to the address at the top of your request.

Dr. Harris and/or the Floyd County Health Department Attorney will contact you with a date and time for the appeal hearing.

Please let me know if I can be of any additional assistance.

Sincerely,

Julia Hayes, EHS
Environmental Supervisor
Floyd County Health Dept
P: (812) 948-4726 X627
F: (812) 948-2208

"In an effort to facilitate seemingly scant communication," my e-mail to Dr. Harris.

(Sent today; most recent PourGate update here)

Good morning, Dr. Harris

In an effort to facilitate seemingly scant communication, please allow me to offer this update, and to ask just a few questions of you.

(1) It has been more than a week since I dropped off a letter detailing points of appeal, v.v. the newly ordained temporary food service permit requirement for beer vending, when we already possess a Type 222 supplemental catering permit (ATC) for such activity. I’ve heard no definitive word on when a hearing will take place on this matter, apart from your entertaining comments made to the newspaper. Can you please inform me of the hearing date, and whether I am allowed to attend it? Seems the media is very curious, and I’m the accommodating type when it comes to transparency.

(2)  It has been several days since I dropped off the Indiana Public Access Request (reprinted below for your convenience). Has it been considered? It’s all very straightforward, I believe; merely a collection of pertinent facts.

(3) You will note that following the advice of counsel, I am acquiring these temporary food permits for beer under written protest, until resolution of the appeal (and subsequent actions, if any). As such, I came to your office last Friday and paid $160 to accompany eight temporary permit applications, for which I subsequently became aware only seven green sheets had been processed and returned to me. The one for Friday, June 28 at Bank Street Brewhouse (outdoor grilling) was not included. Of course, I have the cash receipt to prove payment. Can you please tell me with whom to speak so that this can be rectified? Or should I stop by and just ask anyone?

Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters.

Roger

---

The Public Access request follows.

---


Roger A. Baylor
1117 E. Spring Street
New Albany IN 47150
502-468-9710

June 21, 2013

Floyd County Health Department
Attn.: Dr. Tom Harris
1917 Bono Road
New Albany IN 47150
(Hand Delivered)

Re: Public Records Request

Dear Dr. Harris:

The Floyd County Health Department is a public agency as defined by Indiana Statute. Pursuant to Indiana Public Access statutes (Indiana Code 5-14-3), I am requesting copies of all citations and/or tickets issued by the Floyd County Department of Health to any vendor, person, company and/or individual regarding “Temporary Food Service Permit” for the last five (5) years. In addition, I am requesting that each citation and/or ticket be identified as to whether those cited were serving food or alcoholic beverages.

If there is a cost associated with this request, please inform me of the amount. I look forward to the response and compliance with this request. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Roger A. Baylor

Roger has issued a Indiana Public Access request to the Floyd County Health Department.

The Orwellian dissembling continues inside Dr. Harris' bubbly Inner Sanctum of Over-Reach.

More citations given over temporary food permits in Floyd County; Health department to hear NABC appeal, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune)

... Baylor’s complaint is specific to requiring the permit for alcohol vendors, not groups selling food during festivals or one day events.

Harris maintains that the health department has the authority to require the permit for food and alcohol vendors, and that it has done so in the past.

“We actually go down on the first day of Harvest Homecoming and go through the food booths to make sure they’re compliant,” he said.

Anyone else catch that? I use the word "beer," and Dr. Harris answers with the word "food."

The other interesting part comes here:

As for the appeal, Harris said they would hear Baylor’s case during the next health department board meeting.

It's uplifting to learn via the newspaper that we get a trial date. The Health Department's record of communication is poor even by Pyongyang standards. All those time when Dan Coffey lamented the absence of information? Now we can see that he wasn't looking the right place, because the department has all of it, albeit not always preserved in a sterile condition suitable for sharing.

Unsurprisingly, I've yet to be informed as to the date and time of the hearing -- assuming, of course, that due process is a genuine consideration for a chieftain who already has used the newspaper to dismiss the likelihood of the appeal getting  fair hearing, and that I'm invited to participate in the ritual.

Me? I'm all about transparency.

That's why the Health Department's food/beer temporary permit citation history needs to be examined for rampant doublespeak, and so yesterday I hand delivered the following letter to the Health Department. Notice how I identified the actual statute, rather than refer to it in the abstract sense preferred by Dr. Harris. That's because it's our information isn't it?

Roger A. Baylor

1117 E. Spring Street

New Albany IN 47150

502-468-9710

June 21, 2013

Floyd County Health Department

Attn.: Dr. Tom Harris

1917 Bono Road

New Albany IN 47150

(Hand Delivered)                                                    

Re: Public Records Request

Dear Dr. Harris:

The Floyd County Health Department is a public agency as defined by Indiana Statute. Pursuant to Indiana Public Access statutes (Indiana Code 5-14-3), I am requesting copies of all citations and/or tickets issued by the Floyd County Department of Health to any vendor, person, company and/or individual regarding “Temporary Food Service Permit” for the last five (5) years. In addition, I am requesting that each citation and/or ticket be identified as to whether those cited were serving food or alcoholic beverages.

If there is a cost associated with this request, please inform me of the amount. I look forward to the response and compliance with this request. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Roger A. Baylor