Ma, the mayor's lyin' 'bout his budget again: "Quality of life begins with honest communication, something that just doesn't figure in Gahan's accounting."

David White is running for mayor in the May 7 Democratic primary. I'm voting for him, and you should, too. Visit the David White for Mayor page at Facebook.

As a preface, we have all been here before. In the four months since NAC last commented about this, we've learned that New Albany Housing Authority funds originally earmarked for 1:1 housing replacements are being used to stockpile commercial properties. Indiana's Board of Accounts is taking seriously the documentation of citizen activists living near Mt. Tabor Road (where'd that money go?), and the breathtaking extent of Jeff Gahan's pay-to-play campaign finance donations has become at least partially apparent

But today a fresh and steaming new round of budgetary boasting was splattered on social media by the Genius of the Flood Plain's outreachers, complete with Made by Tricky Dickey hash tags. It's a minor miracle these lies didn't originate with the City's official feed, which typically (and wrongly) functions as an ill-disguised propaganda dispenser for the mayor's whoppers.

In 2015, Jeff Gillenwater penned two incisive commentaries dismembering Gahan's frequent (and spurious) claims to being the "balanced budget mayor." They're worth repeating as a rejoinder to Gahan's dull repetition of false facts.

It should be added that since Bluegill's thoughts were written in 2015, Gahan has instituted his own signature annual sewer rate increase, hijacked a whole community (public housing putsch), committed even more future budgetary resources to riverside amenities, and pushed through the city hall relocation at a total expense in excess of $10,000,000.

I'm leaving out a few things, but we'll get to them eventually. I've updated a few items, and left the rest of it alone. It's as true today as it was four years ago.

Take it away, Jeff.

---

Jeff Gahan likes to say that he has balanced the budget because it makes it sound as though he's somehow managed to run the city more efficiently. He's not as keen to put real numbers to that claim, though, for good reason.

As provided by the Department of Local Government Finance, the state agency that oversees local budgets, here are those actual numbers-- New Albany's annual budgets from 2011 - 2018. Gahan took office in 2012.

2011 - $14,665,386
2012 - $18,738,682
2013 - $20,084,675
2014 - $22,600,514
2015 - $24,300,565
2016 - $24,832,363
2017 - $25,154,022
2018 - $26,270,834
2019 - circa $27,000

Understandably given the large annual spending increases, the district tax rate has increased under Gahan each year as well.

Even with city government spending approximately $13,000,000 more per year now than it did before Gahan took over, those tax increases did not cover his tens of millions of dollars of additional spending on special and often seasonal projects like the aquatics center. Several of those parks projects alone, over $30 million, were financed with Tax Increment backed bonds, borrowed at interest against projected future tax revenues for the next 20 years. Many New Albanians 45 or older will likely be retired or perhaps even deceased before taxpayers manage to pay off just a single Gahan term as mayor.

And, as Gahan himself says, he's not done yet.

There's little reason to believe a third term would be differently focused, more efficient and practical, or more open and inclusive. As Roger Baylor says, transparency should not be a last resort. We shouldn't be reading about million dollar golf course deals months after the fact but we are. If, like many New Albanians, you're not comfortable with a mayor who tells you he's "balanced" the budget when he's substantially increased it or that he's paid off debt from previous administrations when he's taken on much more for comparatively frivolous projects and corporate subsidies, please vote accordingly.

Quality of life begins with honest communication, something that just doesn't figure in Jeff Gahan's accounting.

---

Jeff Gahan says he's balanced the budget but the truth is he's significantly increased the budget, nearly doubling it. He says he's gotten us out of debt because former Mayor England's sewer rate increases - rate increases Gahan argued against - have paid off some sewer bonds but he doesn't mention his own borrowing, which has left us with increased not decreased debt levels.

Worth noting is that much of that debt is going toward paying off multimillion dollar projects that were awarded sans public bidding processes and, at least in some cases, have led to campaign kickbacks.

Now that we've taken on 20 years of debt to pay for them, Gahan says parks are a priority for quality of life but did not mention them at all when running for office. We're also now finding out about his administration taking options on Uptown area real estate and pursuing eminent domain actions on riverfront property but he's again not mentioning any of it in his campaign-- just like he didn't mention spending a million dollars on the golf course to the redevelopment commission or city council before he did it.

If anyone points these facts out too often, they're banished from campaign and party social media spaces. If people value transparency and honesty at all, they can't support this. If they do support it, they've really no right to complain in future about any political deceit. They will have chosen to tie their own blindfolds.

The really telling part is that, as Gahan and Floyd County Democrats block social media access to more and more people, they never actually deny what those people have said.

They can't.

They just don't want people to know about it. The truth makes them look bad so secrecy and lies begets more secrecy and lies. If incumbent and new Democratic council candidates won't speak up against such misleading tactics now, there's no reason to think they will if elected.

It's damning for the whole party.

---

As an addendum, NA Confidential has been unable to confirm whether New Albany Mayor Jeff M. Gahan or anyone working in the city's administration is under federal investigation or indictment for corruption, bribery or racketeering. It is standard policy of the U.S. Justice Department to refuse to confirm or deny the existence or non-existence of investigations or subjects of investigations. A similar policy exists at the F.B.I.

Balanced budget claims? "Many New Albanians 45 or older will likely be retired or perhaps even deceased before taxpayers manage to pay off just a single Gahan term as mayor."

Yesterday a new round of boasting was launched by City's Hall's social media outreach, which in practice functions as an Elect Jeff Gahan Mayor for Life propaganda dispenser.

In 2015, Jeff Gillenwater penned two incisive commentaries dismembering Gahan's frequent (and spurious) claims to being the "balanced budget mayor." They're worth repeating as a rejoinder to Gahan's dull repetition of false facts.

It should be added that since Bluegill's thoughts were written in 2015, Gahan has instituted his own signature annual sewer rate increase, hijacked a whole community (public housing putsch), committed even more future budgetary resources to riverside amenities, and pushed through the city hall relocation at a total expense in excess of $10,000,000.

I'm leaving out a few things, but we'll get to them. I've updated a few items, and left the rest of it alone. It's as true today as it was four years ago.

Take it away, Jeff.

---

Jeff Gahan likes to say that he has balanced the budget because it makes it sound as though he's somehow managed to run the city more efficiently. He's not as keen to put real numbers to that claim, though, for good reason.

As provided by the Department of Local Government Finance, the state agency that oversees local budgets, here are those actual numbers-- New Albany's annual budgets from 2011 - 2018. Gahan took office in 2012.

2011 - $14,665,386
2012 - $18,738,682
2013 - $20,084,675
2014 - $22,600,514
2015 - $24,300,565
2016 - $24,832,363
2017 - $25,154,022
2018 - $26,270,834
2019 - circa $27,000

Understandably given the large annual spending increases, the district tax rate has increased under Gahan each year as well.

Even with city government spending approximately $13,000,000 more per year now than it did before Gahan took over, those tax increases did not cover his tens of millions of dollars of additional spending on special and often seasonal projects like the aquatics center. Several of those projects, over $30 million, were financed with Tax Increment backed bonds, borrowed at interest against projected future tax revenues for the next 20 years. Many New Albanians 45 or older will likely be retired or perhaps even deceased before taxpayers manage to pay off just a single Gahan term as mayor.

And, as Gahan himself says, he's not done yet.

There's little reason to believe a third term would be differently focused, more efficient and practical, or more open and inclusive. As Roger Baylor says, transparency should not be a last resort. We shouldn't be reading about million dollar golf course deals months after the fact but we are. If, like many New Albanians, you're not comfortable with a mayor who tells you he's "balanced" the budget when he's substantially increased it or that he's paid off debt from previous administrations when he's taken on much more for comparatively frivolous projects and corporate subsidies, please vote accordingly.

Quality of life begins with honest communication, something that just doesn't figure in Jeff Gahan's accounting.

---

Jeff Gahan says he's balanced the budget but the truth is he's significantly increased the budget, nearly doubling it. He says he's gotten us out of debt because former Mayor England's sewer rate increases - rate increases Gahan argued against - have paid off some sewer bonds but he doesn't mention his own borrowing, which has left us with increased not decreased debt levels.

Worth noting is that much of that debt is going toward paying off multimillion dollar projects that were awarded sans public bidding processes and, at least in some cases, have led to campaign kickbacks.

Now that we've taken on 20 years of debt to pay for them, Gahan says parks are a priority for quality of life but did not mention them at all when running for office. We're also now finding out about his administration taking options on Uptown area real estate and pursuing eminent domain actions on riverfront property but he's again not mentioning any of it in his campaign-- just like he didn't mention spending a million dollars on the golf course to the redevelopment commission or city council before he did it.

If anyone points these facts out too often, they're banished from campaign and party social media spaces. If people value transparency and honesty at all, they can't support this. If they do support it, they've really no right to complain in future about any political deceit. They will have chosen to tie their own blindfolds.

The really telling part is that, as Gahan and Floyd County Democrats block social media access to more and more people, they never actually deny what those people have said.

They can't.

They just don't want people to know about it. The truth makes them look bad so secrecy and lies begets more secrecy and lies. If incumbent and new Democratic council candidates won't speak up against such misleading tactics now, there's no reason to think they will if elected.

It's damning for the whole party.

Chatting on Fb about the street grid in NA: "The push to start reclaiming some of our streets and spaces for users and uses other than cars isn't a radical change."

My friend and colleague Jeff Gillenwater posted the following to New Albany Indiana, a Facebook group that functions somewhat like the discussion groups of old. Italics are the omniscient narrator (that's Roger), with Jeff's comments in normal font. He begins by explaining a photo we use often at NAC.

This overhead view of Downtown New Albany was created several years ago by Josh Poe, then an urban planning graduate student and New Albany resident. Everything in red is off-street automobile parking. With the exception of the parking garage on the corner of State and Market, it's all surface parking (and, of course, doesn't include all the on-street parking that's readily available.) Given how much more densely developed the city used to be, commercial buildings and/or houses were torn down in most cases to create those parking lots. The next time someone tries to tell you New Albany hasn't done enough to accommodate cars, feel free to share. The push to start reclaiming some of our streets and spaces for users and uses other than cars isn't a radical change. It's a response to and corrective for the past few decades of radical change that has already happened.

Also worth noting, here's what was demolished to create the parking lot that eventually became Bicentennial Park.

And the bank and mostly parking next door.

For good measure, Jeff included parking documentation:

Here is a PDF showing a few hundred parking spots in downtown New Albany; publicly owned and free after 5 pm and on weekends.

Downtown New Albany Public Parking Guide

It seemed to one reader that such comments about auto-centrism were designed to discourage auto use downtown, thus defeating the purpose of revitalization by implementing a "European model" to serve the needs of the few, not the many.

People very invested in defending automobile centric culture are, whether they realize it or not or mean to or not, are speaking from a position of significant privilege. Though New Albany, like a lot of other older U.S. cities, was initially designed for multimodal street usage, most of our infrastructure spending has been aimed squarely at automobiles at the expense of other forms of travel for the past few decades. That's actually a short time in our overall history, but has been true for just long enough now that people don't remember it being any other way. Thus, they tend to see calls for more equity between various forms of transportation and any talk of curtailing automobile dominance as demonizing cars and car drivers. What the posts actually do is point out that it's not always been that way. If we could decide to change it fifty or sixty years ago, we can decide to change it now. Realizing what we've given up, what we've lost and are still losing in the process of converting to automobile dominance, is a first step in deciding to pursue change.

As for the "European model" in a pejorative sense ...

New Albany was built by European immigrants on a European model. That's how it was designed to properly function (and functioned well, for 150 or more years. Over and over again for years people have provided links to research, case studies, and successful approaches that have pointed directly to greater overall public good via what you call a European model. That some folks simply choose to not acknowledge that doesn't make the people sharing that information a narrow interest group. If you can show how automobile centric models have proven to be better for us in terms of fiscal responsibility, public health, and environmental wellbeing, I'm all ears (or eyes, as relevant).

Another reader asked whether it is possible to have a vibrant urban area without "cheap" parking on abundant surface lots. Parking garages like the one we used in Chicago last week weren't mentioned.

One of the more interesting aspects of the "hard to park" scenario has to do with perception. People often walk farther from their parking spots and back to their cars at WalMart than they do downtown, but will still insist that WalMart has close-in parking and downtown doesn't. Try to suggest that the environment in which people are asked to walk has something to do with it, though, and ...

Jeff elaborated.

It really is a trip how quickly downtown parking perceptions changed. When my mom got married, she moved from the west end of New Albany... all the way to Sellersburg. LOL. When I was a kid, we still came to downtown New Albany all the time. In the 70s and early 80s, a lot of the older stores were still here. We never expected, even at that late date, being able to park directly in front of a place most of the time. I mean, you might get lucky and something would open up along the way, but we mostly just went straight to the parking garage (formerly located next to what's now Big Four Burgers) and assumed we'd have to walk a few blocks to the places we were going. Now, to hear some folks talk about it, parking on Bank Street to go to a place on Pearl is some sort of inordinate hardship. Oddly enough, a lot of those same people don't think twice about parking in the middle of the Meijer parking lot and walking quite a bit farther to the department they actually need, to the checkout counter, and then back to the car. It might have something to do with the environment in which the walk is occurring.

I mentioned out having just returned from Chicago, where people regularly pay outlandish prices to park downtown. For the record, we parked the car in a garage for four days ($122) and bought two three-day CTA transit passes for $20 each. One reader rightfully pointed to the absence of these transit options in New Albany.

At one point in their respective histories, the Southern Indiana/Louisville metro area rivaled Chicago in transit development. It's one of the things that gives me a chuckle when some folks refer to New Albany's automobile-centered heritage. It just ain't so.

Jeff posted these three explanatory links.

Passenger Rail The Way It Used To Be

Louisville’s Incredible Elevated Rapid Transit Trains

JEFFERSONVILLE/NEW ALBANY TRANSIT HISTORY

The point in sharing examples from other places and comparative histories isn't to say that those places are the same or should be. More than anything, the idea is that places can change themselves and what they emphasize or value and have many times over, New Albany included. Per the original Chicago reference about parking, people pay a lot to park in Chicago because (Rahm's privatization scheme aside for a moment) they think it's worth it to be there. That's a very scalable concept. Funny aside: I deal with Chicagoans pretty regularly now at work, including getting them parked sometimes. When I tell them all-day parking is $6, they laugh at me like I told them a really good joke.

In advocating two-way streets and other components of urban street grid reform, we've always referenced research and experience. We've pointed to successful reforms in other cities, and not just in Europe. I've come to expect a specific rebuttal, which constitutes a form of exceptionalism: "But New Albany is different. Biology and gravity might work the same here, but not street grids."

For a lot of Americans, merely pointing out that a concept came from elsewhere is the equivalent of saying it's obviously wrong. Beyond that, it's often a matter of insisting that WE have always been one way and THEY have always been another. Like "scalable", that applies to a lot more than parking and cars, too. In all seriousness, privilege and the language and power dynamics of privilege are always a big part of conversations around cars and other street users. You can swap out the "we" and " they" parts and a lot the arguments are so similar to other social issues that involve a majority addressing a minority that they're nearly interchangeable on a linguistic level.

Too much information? 

Unfortunately, no one ever said learning was easy. Ten years ago, I understood very little of this. Now I understand more, and if a slow learner like me can do it -- so can anyone. 

We're counting the ways Jeff Gahan is spending millions without fundamentally addressing failed infrastructure.

To be accurate, Jeff Gillenwater is counting them, and he's doing such a wonderful job of refuting Team Gahan's exaggerated claims that I'll merely recount the point-counterpoint.

"Let us also count the tens of millions of debt we'll be paying back for the next couple of decades while the campaign brags about cash reserves only because it has handcuffed young people with such hefty credit card bills. And why is the irresponsible, neighborhood polluting former owner of this property still being granted so many demolition contracts by the Gahan administration? Was the princely, publicly paid sum for this property not enough of a reward for party loyalty? Should we look for his name on the campaign donor list?"

---

"Like I said, they try to brag about their financial prowess without mentioning the tens of millions of debt we've incurred in just over three years while doing little to address what is obviously failing infrastructure all over the city. An out-of-town developer wants a $5 million handout? No problem. A citizen wants their storm sewer drain to actually drain? Tough cookies. As I previously mentioned, if you're 45 or older, you'll likely be retired or dead before New Albany's citizens pay off Gahan's single term as mayor and we have little functional improvement to show for it. It doesn't take a genius to pay for so much on long-term credit and it certainly doesn't take one to think that doing so means the few extra dollars in one's pocket that day as a temporary, short-term result is a sign of sound fiscal management."

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

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

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

New Albany's River Run Family Water Park belatedly opened last week, and was formally dedicated yesterday by means of a mayoral re-election rally thinly disguised as a christening. By last night, several discussions were underway at Facebook and other social media sites as to the water park's value in a community context.

Memories are short, and the following was written by NAC co-editor Jeff Gillenwater. It was published here on May 20, 2013. Given that Jeff Gahan will be using the aquatics facility as a major component of his 2015 campaign platform, and depicting it as a precious gift bestowed upon loyal subjects, it seems only fitting to give over my column today to Gillenwater's matchless explanation of how Gahan might have claimed just as much credit for half the price -- because the money does indeed matter, whether Steve Sipes, Pat McLaughlin or any other Democratic functionary cares to discuss it or not, and they generally haven't.

This $9 million expenditure was not mentioned during Gahan's 2011 run for mayor, and once it was given the green light, there was no substantive public discussion of benefits versus cost.

Without such a discussion, how is the water park's ultimate value to be determined?

Answer: It isn't, and that's the whole point. In fact, River Run is a certified campaign issue in 2015, just not in the way Gahan assumes -- and Gillenwater explained why two whole years ago.

I'm delighted to let him do it again. Take it away, Jeff.

---

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

Since the serious prospect of a new municipal swimming pool or aquatic center was made public in New Albany, several people, though not elected officials or most media types, have issued numerous, relevant questions.

Roger did a fine job, for instance, of asking how or why an aquatics-based project fits with quality of life justifications, particularly when more pressing quality issues, some of which are much less expensive to address and more costly not to, stand mostly ignored.

Likewise, Sam Schad and his group asked why, with such a huge expenditure, we can't at least get increased utility from such a facility if we're going to build it anyway without the sort of considerations Roger suggests.

Somewhere in-between the two, I mused that whether the expenditure would be worth it or not would depend largely on what was ultimately and comprehensively delivered-- hardly a profound concept but one too readily dismissed by too many current decision makers. Given the vast amount of money then proposed and now doubly approved, I foolishly held out hope that council voices would rightfully point out that, for the price, we should be able to produce an aquatic center and a competitive lap pool and the reclamation of our two-way streets and perhaps some other potential initiatives.

Why did/do I think that? Because, apparently unlike some voluntarily voiceless council members, I bothered with a smidgeon of research into how comparable cities have handled comparable situations.

Marion, Ohio, is one such city. Its population of just under 37,000 is almost exactly the same as New Albany's. Marion, too, had an aging pool - a very common predicament nationwide - in a setting of roughly the same land space as Camille Wright: one that needed either substantial rehabilitation or replacement if the city decided to maintain a facility at all.

Conversation in Marion was somewhat similar to ours here as well.  Like New Albany, there were discussions of the overall usefulness of such a facility and whether or not it would cash flow. Totally unlike New Albany, there was even legitimate debate about proposed costs. Finally, Marion's city council online.com/uncategorized/2011/06/council-overrides-veto-of-aquatic-center/">overrode a cost driven mayoral veto to build an aquatic center, depicted below via text and images from online.com/">Marion Online and the aquatic center's Facebook page. It opened last summer, 2012, and has since online.com/news/2013/03/marion-aquatic-center-earns-state-award/">won a state award for recreation facilities.

"The new center will feature heated water, Lazy River, Floating Lilly Pads, Zero-depth entry, 25 foot Racing Slides, a 6 foot Family Slide, a Water Play set with a bucket that dumps 150 gallons of water, 25 meter 6 lane pool with a high dive and low dive and a separate baby pool."

 

It indeed appears to be a very nice facility that's been well received by the community. 

Here's the rub: That debate about cost that led to both a mayoral veto and a council override? It was a fight over whether to spend $2.4 million or $3.5 million. The council favored the 3.5 and won. 

All the above- much of it strikingly familiar - was built within the past couple of years for less than half of even the most conservative cost estimate provided by the administration and approved by the council for New Albany's impending center. Assuming we're not purposefully overspending for nefarious political purposes, New Albany could have something very similar and $4 - 5.5 million left over to address other quality of life needs without spending any more than what's already been approved.

Making that possible, though, requires a majority of council members who think beyond mayoral and Estopinal suggestions and consider such basic, comparative due diligence a part of their job. In terms of what our council has thus far publicly offered up relative to aquatic center merits, the one direct comparison offered here - easily gleaned from about 30 minutes of individual research - unfortunately represents more than our council members have collectively put forth over several months. 

The quantity and quality of discourse around numerous "park" projects has been so low and the prices so high that, if I didn't know some of the folks involved personally, I'd probably just assume they were receiving substantial kickbacks for such a dubious (lack of) effort. I don't believe that, but the lack of diligence has been egregious enough to make it a plausible explanation to fill an obvious void.

One would think (or at least I did) that the public embarrassment of a $750,000 downtown pocket park with less utility and flexibility than a $200,000 park could've offered and/or tens of thousands so casually given to a Bicentennial Commission who clearly told council members they had "no idea" how the money would be used before being granted funding should have been sufficient cause for a slightly more thoughtful approach in considering the aquatics expenditure. But, then, I already admitted to being foolishly optimistic.

If any of the council "yes" voters would like to explain exactly which portion of our proposed aquatic center justifies multiple, additional millions as compared to what we can plainly observe here, the floor is open. It's been open for months. Until any such rational, evidence-based explanation materializes, however, "rubber-stamp" criticisms will ring truer than usual for a group who, via the intelligence of its individual members, ought to know much better. 

As an overall experience, our current council group has in ways been even more frustrating than some of the lesser moments of the Kochert-led era that served as my introduction to New Albany politics. During that time, a distinct lack of intellectual capital coalesced with an abundance of insider bullying to render capacity so low as to substantially limit both expectations and actual potential. 

But that's not the case here. What we have now is an example of "won't" rather than "can't" in which acquiring council seats has somehow rendered usually talented people into an amorphous mass of counterproductive group decline. The sum is less than its parts. No one is consistently demonstrating their capacity for good questions, so we're settling for lousy, injudicious answers and losing badly.

So far, a bunch of really smart people have managed to haphazardly waste millions in public funding without so much as addressing some fundamental quality of life and prioritization issues. If such behavior continues unchecked by any number of council members quite capable of checking it, future councils and the city at large will have a much more difficult time responding to those issues as we try to dig ourselves out of holes already dug, some quite literally, at places like Bicentennial Park and the aquatics center. 

As a citizen and voter, I've always felt it important to extend at least some effort toward helping ensure that we elect as talented a group of leaders as possible. This council, however, with its inexplicable yet seemingly automatic brainpower off switch - apparently activated by the doors at city hall - is calling that premise into question. 

An unexamined "yes" is no better and sometimes worse than an ignorant "no" in that it actively reduces opportunities rather than just passively ignores them. In short, all this "no-brainer" malarkey when it comes to water features is costing us a lot of money that could easily be better spent but which we'll never get back. 

We've seen several frighteningly unthinking financial decisions from this council lately that, taken together, set quite a negative precedent that should be and, since no aquatics contracts have been let, can be immediately corrected before yet another boondoggle becomes a part of their permanent record.

---

Recent columns:

June 25: ON THE AVENUES REWOUND: Red scarf, white shirt and San Miguel beer (2012).

June 18: ON THE AVENUES: These 10 definitions will help you speak local politics like a native.

June 11: ON THE AVENUES: This is Dan Coffey, New Albany’s quintessential Democrat.

June 4: ON THE AVENUES: Dan Coffey speaks for Jeff Gahan and the Democratic Party … unless they say otherwise.

May 28: ON THE AVENUES: The last of the summer beer.

May 21: ON THE AVENUES REWOUND: "I Just Want to Know, Can I Park Here Somewhere?”

"City for people," or not?

I posted this at Facebook.

The more dense the urban setting, the greater numbers of walkers and bikers. The greater number of walkers and bikers, the less sense it makes to maintain arterial streets for the benefit of those passing through, to the exclusion of the greater good of the neighborhood hosting the streets. Of course, there must be a balance. But I’m weary of the argument that an extra five minutes transit time for suburbanites is sufficient reason to maintain unsafe conditions for walkers and bikers in urban neighborhoods.

A discussion broke out, and you can read it here.

So true, so true.

Courtesy of my blogging co-conspirator:

"If the next mayor of New Albany does little except bust up preexisting cliques rather than enforce them, they'll be successful for creating breathing room where oxygen is sucked out now."

Apologies, but I've been wanting to say that out loud, and Jeff phrasing is perfectly. Is it beer-thirty yet?

A correction.

Yesterday, I gave NA/FC Schools Superintendent Bruce Hibbard a hard time for acting like Kerry Stemler. It was a solid joke precisely because a previous time Hibbard had a big decision to make he went to 1SI for counsel while ignoring parents and apparently pretty much everyone else.

However, new reporting by Tara Hettinger of The Tribune suggests that I was hasty in buying into Becky Gardenour's account of things. I emailed Tara and she says the compact with what many consider to be offensive language came from the Indiana School Boards Association. So, for being misleading, I apologize.

See, Mike Dalby, that wasn't so hard, was it?

New Albany Now tomorrow: The Ohio River Bridges project.

Yesterday at NAC: Excuse me while I scrape my shoe.

Tomorrow night, the discussion moves to online talk radio. Here's the promo.

Ohio River Bridges: Who's the Fool?

We have a heavy schedule of programming in the next two weeks, starting with a special Sunday night show. The esteemed co-editor of NA Confidential, bluegill, aka Jeff Gillenwater, will join us as our special guest, to discuss the Ohio River Bridges project.

For the remaining schedule, please visit the show profile to see what's on tap.

We're lining up guest callers for Sunday night and we invite your questions. The show kicks off at 8 p.m.