New Albany is a state of mind … but whose? Since 2004, we’ve been observing the contemporary scene in this slowly awakening old river town. If it’s true that a pre-digital stopped clock is right twice a day, when will New Albany learn to tell time?
I e-mailed this letter at 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 29, 2017. Like sand in the hourglass, so are the days of our lives ... in the absence of a newspaper.
--- To: Linda Moeller, city controller
Greetings,
On November 7, 2017, the Board of Public Works and Safety approved claims presented to the body by your office. 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? If these are not accessible to members of the public according to the stipulations of Indiana’s Public Access Laws, can you point me to the section explaining this?
The county pays its share of animal shelter upkeep to the city, which deposits the money and pays the bills. But the agreement as written is vague as to percentages of the tithe versus actual expenses, and there isn't a dedicated bank account. County money disappears into the city's general fund.
All (Scott) Clark seems to be asking is to see the record of expenditures.
On the third floor, as ever, the wagons are circled. I was among those in favor of the parks department split, on the grounds of county non-support. However, doubts have long since crept into the narrative, and not only because of Team Gahan's TIF-fueled parks spending spree (entirely unmentioned during the 2011 mayoral campaign).
The county has a convincing case in the animal shelter funding imbroglio -- and Gahan's refusal to release information merely enhances it.
Meanwhile, the newspaper's reasoning is impeccable.
... We're not disputing that the controller's office is a busy place. But "we're busy" isn't an acceptable response for delaying or denying a public records request as basic as this one.
We contend that without a clear financial picture of the NA-FC animal shelter, determining how it will be funded moving forward will remain cloudy.
I'll never understand how the newspaper determines its photo accompaniment to articles like this. Floyd County's auditor (Scott Clark) and New Albany's controller (Linda Moeller) feature prominently, and the crux of the story is funding the animal shelter.
Consequently, the photo shows Matt Oakley, president of the county council, whose name appears one solitary time near the end. You'd think there'd be a file photo of a dog or cat.
Meanwhile, this move has been on the agenda for a while. The county pays its share of animal shelter upkeep to the city, which deposits the money and pays the bills. But the agreement as written is vague as to percentages of the tithe versus actual expenses, and there isn't a dedicated bank account. County money disappears into the city's general fund.
All Clark seems to be asking is to see the record of expenditures.
On the third floor, as ever, the wagons are circled. I was among those in favor of the parks department split, on the grounds of county non-support. However, doubts have long since crept into the narrative, and not only because of Team Gahan's TIF-fueled parks spending spree (entirely unmentioned during the 2011 mayoral campaign).
The county has a convincing case in the animal shelter funding imbroglio -- and Gahan's refusal to release information merely enhances it.
FLOYD COUNTY — Following a determination from the state Public Access Counselor, the Floyd County Council plans to file suit against the city of New Albany today or Thursday for failure to provide financial information on their portion of funding the New Albany-Floyd County Animal Shelter.
I've received my letter from the League of Women Voters, inviting me to the "candidate forum" for 2015 Mayor and City Council Candidates. It will be on September 24 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at Silver Street Park. The event chair is Linda Moeller, the city controller.
As controller, she pays the bills for the park, which cost several million dollars and features prominently in her immediate supervisor's campaign for re-election.
But as the rules (see below) clearly indicate, a non-partisan atmosphere must be maintained.
In addition, closing statements "should be significantly related" to questions provided in advance to the candidates. In short: No truth telling, okay?
I've nothing against either Linda Moeller or the League of Women Voters, but let's be honest. The chair is a Gahan appointee, the venue itself is a Gahan gilded palace and platform plank, and considering these two trends, the questions almost certainly can be relied upon to be incumbent-friendly.
I'd prefer a genuine debate to a staged re-enthronement, but of course I'll sign and return the sheet, agreeing to abide by these rules.
NA Confidential's mask-free policy on reader comments.
NA Confidential believes in a higher bar than is customary in the blogosphere, and follows a disclosure policy with respect to reader comments.
First, you must be registered with blogger.com according to the procedures specified. This is required not as a means of directing traffic to blogger.com, but to reduce the lamentable instances of flaming and personal attacks on the part of the anonymous.
Second, although pen names are perfectly acceptable, senior editor Roger A. Baylor must be informed of your identity, and according to your preference, it will be kept confidential.
To reiterate, I insist upon this solely to lessen the frequency of malicious anonymity, which unfortunately plagues certain other blogs hereabouts.
You may e-mail Roger at the address given within his profile and explain who you are. Failure to comply means that your comments probably will be deleted -- although the final decision remains ours.
Thanks for reading, and please consider becoming a part of the community here, one that is respectful of the prerequisites of civilized discourse, and that seeks to engage visitors in substantive dialogue.
