John Muir: "Do we really know this man?"

Sounds like the perfect candidate to helm Jeff Gahan's parks department, especially the doggie water slide division, as it's built atop a sacred Native American ground.

Dog daze: With Gahan back in the safe house, civilian architect Timperman now is the city's official spokesman.

But enough of that, Here's Johnny ...

The Miseducation of John Muir, by Justin Nobel (Atlas Obscura)

A close examination of the wilderness icon's early travels reveal a deep love for trees, and some ugly feelings about people.

... The problem for Muir, for the National Park Service, for all of us, is that America was never a blank slate. And we know now Muir’s story was wrong. As new research by ecologists like Kat Anderson, of University of California Davis, shows, Native Americans in California, including those in Yosemite Valley, intentionally used fire to open land, increase pasturage, prevent even larger more catastrophic fires, and promote biodiversity. Muir’s sacred Yosemite was not a garden tended by God, as he wrote so passionately about, it was a garden tended by Native people.

Muir’s blurry human vision is something Native writers and historians have been grappling with for some time. “We do not know why Muir was blind regarding the original people in all of the beautiful National Park locations he waxed about so eloquently,” wrote Native author Roy Cook. “Indian people are the true conscience of the American character.”

Much ado about almost nothing as 18-year era sprouts hyperbole, then ends.

In other anti-climactic news, Roger Jeffers is likely to become the county parks superintendent. Irv Stumler gets to serve on another board, and somewhere, a dog barks plaintively as the sun sets on the Heavrin-less county council.

A depression suddenly seizes me. What's the city to do now? After this combined parks era, one comprising a full 9% of New Albany's 199-year history, how on earth can we go it alone, without the mature, adult hand of fiscally accountable exurbia to guide us past the rough patches and inevitably spray-painted park bench vandalism?

Woe is us.

Pfui.

An era comes to an end in Floyd County; Parks board holds final meeting ahead of Jan. 1 split, by Daniel Suddeath ('Bama Ad Aggregator)

“I know we fought the good fight — we did everything we could for this community,” (Scott) Klink said.

Partying like it's 1993 (or 1900) as parks secession legislation passes.

(The council president tries in vain to extinguish the hallowed torch of city park liberty)

Via Twitter, the News and Tribune's Daniel Suddeath reports that the city and county park system's divorce is final.

Earlier in the evening, I predicted on Twitter that Bob "CeeSaw" Caesar would live up to my escalating disdain and change his vote. As you can see, he flipped. Somewhere out in his garage, King Larry Kochert is tumescent, and maybe even incandescent.

Parks Agitprank: What do you mean it wasn't "political"? Irv Stumler was there, for chrissakes.

Here's the plan: "The current Parks Department model entered into beginning in 1994 has contributed to a blatant and ongoing inequality in funding by Floyd County to Agreement."

Here's what happened on Friday:

... In front of the City-County Building, a group that included local business leaders, attorneys and elected officials gathered to make a final push to the New Albany City Council to strike down a proposal to split the joint parks department.

Toward the end of the press conference, NA-FC Parks Board Chairman Scott Klink was interrupted while addressing the media by Councilman Dan Coffey, who voted for the split on first and second readings last month and is the sponsor of the measure to divide the department.

Here's what Mayor Gahan had to say:

Gahan released a statement on the press conference Friday, as he called it “an obvious political stunt.”

“Election day jitters have forced county officials to make promises that are in complete contradiction to both their recent actions and public statements,” Gahan said. “My plan is the best way to improve parks and recreation here in New Albany, and I encourage everyone to visit our website to read it.”

Here's what CM Kevin Zurschmiede had to say:

"I think the county has put forth a lot of effort to equalize their funding."

Here's what I have to say:

Kevin, my dear man, exactly why was it that the county HAD to out forth effort to equalize funding if that's what it was SUPPOSED to do in the first place? 

Mom, apple pie, Chevrolet ... and NA-FC Parks Department?

I've never harbored any doubt that Roger Jeffers, the parks department superintendent, does a good job. I've heard nothing but praise for him. For all I know, he quite possibly is the finest local administrator of them all.

So, given the tenor of his comments ever since the mayor's parks secession project was announced, pardon my insouciance in asking: Was Roger Jeffers ever elected to anything?

And: Do residents of Floyd County (of which, at last glance, New Albany remained a part) answer to Jeffers, or does he answer to us?

Look, of course it's tough. You take a job, and then things change without warning. It's also called life, and sometimes politics, and it's something that happens to working people all the time. When it does, they adapt ... or get swept away.

But when Jeffers switches from hired hand mode to aspirant Gallup pollster, it's rather embarrassing: "The citizens are not happy," opines the super, and yes, the ones bothering to call him probably are. Me? I'm perfectly happy. Need I phone the Rajah to provide the other side of the story?

It might be easier for him to dismount the high horse and realize that Generalizations typically are Hell. It might also be the case that if citizens genuinely are unhappy -- as oh so many city residents have been during county's government's merrily irresponsible period of chronic parks underfunding -- this discontent will indeed be manifested at the polls when voting time comes.

To repeat: Parks are damned important, and for numerous reasons, but there are as many different ways to have, use and operate them as there are governmental entities. The NA-FC parks board's current theme of "Just the Way We Are" is one such strategy. It is neither the only way, nor a religious commandment set in balsa. Can someone representing the parks-business-as-always side of the aisle please conjure a persuasive argument? My eyelids are drooping, already.

They cannot plausibly deny that there are other organizational models. As for the "duplication of financing" arguments, we already have a profound example of non-duplication: The county's decade-long decision to not pay its share. No duplication there. All we seemingly have left is the argument from gloom and doom: If we cannot continue doing something the way we always have, there will be floods, pestilence and cross-dressers descending upon us.

As Nero Wolfe once observed, "Pfui."

Bluegill provides the closer:

Jeffers: "That makes me not want to work for either side to tell you the truth." Me: "OK."

In the newspaper (remember to lower the volume so you don't have to listen to the automatically generated sales dentist): Floyd County moving ahead with parks plan; Jeffers doubtful city can handle transition in two months, by Daniel Suddeath.

Amid universal nods of resignation, the 'Bune editorial board botches parks secession opinion.

Apart from Keith Olbermann and Charles P. Pierce, it's generally a bad idea to entrust political commentary to career sportwriters. That said, let's lower ourselves into the abyss of the newspaper editorial board's opinion on the evolving NA-FC parks split. Their text appears in normal formatting, and my replies as quotes.

---

OUR OPINION: Plenty of problems to share for parks split

New Albany Mayor Jeff Gahan’s justification for wanting to form a separate New Albany parks system is legitimate.

Over an eight year period, Floyd County shortchanged the New Albany-Floyd County Parks Department by about $4 million. This summer, the Floyd County Commissioners declined to vote on forming a cumulative capital fund to aid in expenses with the park, though city taxpayers have been footing the additional levy for years.

The reasons for not living up to their end of the bargain have changed numerous times for Floyd County officials. We’ve been told the money had to be used for murder trials, the county didn’t realize the taxes weren’t going to the parks department and even that the state cut the levy rate.

Those aren’t exactly the practices of an entity most would consider partnering with for any matter that has financial implications.

No, they’re not, are they? The ‘Bune’s editorial board clearly understands the magnitude of the county’s serial “deadbeat dad” approach to governance. But you just know it can't last …

However, the parks situation is much larger than a simple yes or no vote. Jobs, property and future collaboration with the county must be considered by the city before moving ahead with the divide of the parks system. The New Albany council voted 6-3 to do just that Thursday night, but finalizing the move will require one more vote.

Ah, I see. It is “much larger.” What does this mean, and why is it true? Yes, jobs, properties and “future collaborations” (Really? You wanna go out with that guy again after he dined and dashed before the check came due and made you go Dutch Treat?) are considerations, to be sure; as I noted last week, these also were presumed factors in seeking to avid the split of an entire Central European country, and Czechs and Slovaks somehow managed to work them out.

Frankly, Gahan hasn’t been forthcoming with the NA-FC Parks Board about his intentions, at least not in an official capacity. Gahan was one of the few city or county officials who skipped at least one of the joint meetings hosted by the parks board to try to mediate past woes between the entities. Also, no one from the Gahan administration addressed the parks board about the split prior to the measures being placed on the New Albany City Council’s agenda Thursday.

On one hand, county officials never came before the city to announce they wouldn’t be adequately funding the parks department. But the county’s mistake should be a lesson, not a reason to keep the parks board in the dark about what may transpire.

Two things here. First, what is it about the parks in general, and the parks board in particular, that cloaks them in a perpetual above-the-fray holiness, more so than other local administrative entities? Personally I believe parks are very important, but I can see numerous potential models of governance. Since when did this one become sacrosanct, unimpeachable and shielded from scrutiny? In addition, why does Mayor Gahan have a greater responsibility to be loquacious than county government? Gahan gets scalded for non-transparence, but the county’s years of similar mute funding behavior is merely a lesson. What of the parks board’s own non-transparence in conducting its affairs, as when it sought to engineer a state legislature-mandated tax hoarding without notifying the county or the city? Why wasn't that considered non-transparent?

The parks board oversees several employees, some of whom have served this community for 40 years. Gahan owed an explanation to those volunteer board members — whether they agreed with his choice or not — so they could, in turn, inform parks employees.

Subsequent news items suggest he has done so.

If he believes in the split, he should stand up for it and look parks board members in the eye. Not to mention it’s October, and if there’s going to be a city parks system in place by Jan. 1, there’s a tremendous amount of preparation and planning that will be needed.

Again, why is it that Gahan alone bears the solemn quasi-Old Testament obligation to look parks board members "in the eye"? Were these board members appointed by “god” herself? Why this disproportionate requirement of Gahan, while serial fiscal negligence on the part of county government gets little more than an affectionate butt slap -- hey, cool, you'll do better next eight year stretch, right?

What is the rush? Why not release a plan, get people on board and proceed in 2014. There seem to be too many questions that need answers before the split occurs.

Now I’m confused. The parks split is acceptable, and there are compelling reasons for it? If so, given that the editorial board can see that county government is culpable even if the board shrinks from learning its own lessons from the experience, why tolerate another year of county under-funding guesswork? Why not act swiftly? 

Here are some other questions to consider:

• What would such a divide really mean for the residents of New Albany? Sam Peden Community Park is the city’s largest and most frequented outdoor recreational facility. But the land is owned by the county, so if the split ultimately happens, it will solely be in charge of the park’s upkeep.

After what has taken place in the past, how much do you trust the county to maintain the city’s most sizable park? Floyd County Commissioners President Steve Bush said recently he would not be in favor of selling any of the park land for commercial use, but he’s only one vote.

What if the county decides one day to develop Community Park? New Albany would have very few options to stop the greenspace from being covered with asphalt and residential or commercial buildings if that were to transpire.

New Albanians are grateful the newspaper's editorial board seems to grasp that when it comes to the future of Community Park, county government can be trusted only as far as I can throw a keg filled with 12% beer. Naturally, the board cites this legitimate mistrust of county government’s ultimate aims as evidence that city residents should live in fear of the bully. Uh, right.

• Also, in a time where taxpayers are calling for condensed government, how will Floyd County and New Albany be affected when footing two parks departments?

New Albany taxpayers have already shouldered the biggest part of the parks funding load, but that won’t change when the split happens. Unless New Albany plans to secede from Floyd County, city taxpayers will still be paying for the bulk of parks operations. New Albany residents will be paying for city parks on their own, as well as taxes that will likely help foot a new and separate county recreation system.

The showdown over this issue has spilled over into other arenas as well. The city and county are now in the midst of a legal battle over planning control of the fringe area, and New Albany declined to merge its 911 dispatch operation with Floyd County. The county is the second-smallest county in the state in terms of land area, so shouldn’t we be coming together to cut out duplicated services and costs?

The Alabama-based N and T parent company eliminated duplication in 2011, didn't it, and look where THAT got us. But I digress. These bellicose taxpayers presumably are the very same ones who’d be among the first to demand that all parties involved pay their fair share into the parks just like the taxpayers themselves have been doing all along. Would taxpayers genuinely interested in fairness be willing to forgive and forget the county’s serial underpayment of parks monies? Or do we merely fluff taxpayers in a sort of ritualistic abnegation without exploring the nuances of what they're demanding this week? Sadly, nowadays, yes, but it’s also worth noting that if one is to follow this incredibly tired “duplicated services and costs” to its logical conclusion, we’d have only one government nationwide, obtaining the very best rates for bulk purchasing and distribution … wait, sorry; that’s the socialist bogeyman, isn’t it?

At some point, the city and the county are going to have to cooperate for the good of the residents.

When all is considered, New Albany may have a better chance of garnering a new outdoor pool and a Little League facility on its own. But such a big move as splitting a parks department shouldn’t be rushed into a special meeting with little notice.

Parks are one of the assets companies review before deciding to locate to a community. Just thinking about a warm sunny day in a park with family and friends stirs positive emotions in our minds and souls.

But this whole issue has been anything but warm and fuzzy. It shows incompetence by the county and lack of respect by the Gahan administration for the employees and board members who have served the parks system.

So, why isn't the editorial board asking the single most obvious question posed by this discussion: How do we compel county government to cooperate? To make this point again: If the newspaper is interested in clarity, mustn’t it explain why a simple, subjective and highly debatable “lack of respect” from Jeff Gahan is to be considered commensurate with a county government so objectively “incompetent” as to fail to honor its side of a money deal not merely for the brief tenure of Gahan’s term, but for a period of years? How are these failures equal, editorial board? And what on earth do warm fuzzies have to do with any of it?

— The News and Tribune editorial board is comprised of Publisher Bill Hanson, Editor Shea Van Hoy and Assistant Editors Chris Morris and Amy Huffman-Branham.

Perhaps it is, but since the managing editor freely acknowledges that 3/4 of this quartet rarely venture out of HQ in Jeffersonville, I believe we know who wrote it, don't we? And that explains a lot, doesn't it?

The gentle embrace of a Velvet Divorce.

20 years ago next year, there was a Velvet Divorce.

Before that, there had been a Velvet Revolution. It occurred in 1989, and was a largely peaceful process wherein the central European nation of Czechoslovakia disengaged from Soviet hegemony. The world looked on in admiration as bloodshed was avoided … and then its attention was diverted to other matters.

Meanwhile, as communism was being deposited into history’s dustbin, subsequent events within Czechoslovakia illustrated that merely escaping the clutches of the Warsaw Pact would not be sufficient to resolve cultural and structural deficiencies inherent to the Czechoslovak state. A second discussion began.

Hence, the Velvet Divorce in 1993. The marriage had lasted more than seventy years, through very troubled times.

Czechoslovakia had come into existence only after World War I as one of the new countries created from the collapse of Austria-Hungary. To better make a case for independence, leaders from Bohemia and Moravia (the Czech lands) and Slovakia forged an alliance and pushed for one inclusive state, concluding that self-determination according to the ideals of Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points might occur among separate cultural entities so long as the parties agreed to the union.

In spite of a prevailing view of Czechoslovakia as a model interwar democracy, there proved to be numerous snags between Czechs and Slovaks. Both are Slavs, and they speak languages that are similar, though not entirely the same. They’re much alike, and also not. As indigenous populations within the Austro-Hungarian empire, Czechs and Slovaks might be said to have been raised quite differently. The Czech lands were administered by Austria’s ruling ethnic Germans, and the Slovaks by Hungary – and Hungarians are neither Slav nor German, and came late (late 1800’s) to the power-sharing game within the empire itself.

Bohemia and Moravia became industrialized early in the 19th-century, and were the empire’s manufacturing hub. Imperial rule was bureaucratic, and yet more relaxed there. Concurrently, Slovakia was rural and agricultural from the start, and the Hungarian administration considerably more restrictive.

Even after World War II, when Slovakia was belatedly industrialized, the Soviet-model factories built often were outmoded at birth, serving mostly to produce heavy armaments for East Bloc military use. The Slovaks were dealt some bad hands, and played some hands badly. The point is that formative experiences among the Slovak and Czech peoples were quite different.

In short, when the Wall came down, fissures in the Czech-Slovak marriage became visible and bubbled to the surface. Unity against a common enemy no longer sufficed to inculcate togetherness. Throughout the country, there were high emotions ranging from regret, sadness and disappointment to hostility, chest-thumping and bravado. The situation among these peoples in a formerly united country genuinely might have been said to resemble the atmosphere of a crumbling marriage.

There was a desperate need for cool heads, counseling and compromise, lest the split become final. There were dire predictions of disaster.

No one stepped forward. The Czech lands and Slovakia went their separate ways.

And almost nothing bad happened.

In fact, many good things happened.

The divorce?

It really was Velvet.

Two decades later, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are doing as well as most European countries, and better than several others. Of course, political, social and economic issues within these two nations are many and varied; Czech politics can be comically Italianesque, and Slovak relations with Hungary tend to be strained. Neither country does particularly well with its minority populations of Roma (i.e., gypsies). But significantly, these Czech and Slovak problems have next to nothing to do with each other.

At the time of the Velvet Divorce, it often was asked why Czechs and Slovaks would ignore the superior economies of scale afforded by national unity. Why would they duplicate governmental and economic functions when there were only 10 million people altogether living in Czechoslovakia?

Because: The overlay of unity was shown to have been artificial, and the combined functions of one state never adequately addressed the regional difference and needs of two. Czechoslovakia proved to have been a shotgun marriage all along. Now it is not, and since the divorce, the formerly married parties generally get along just fine.

Amazing, isn't it? It makes you think separation might actually work the same way in other places, too.

Nash on the split: "For the past several years the leaders of Floyd County have not done the right thing."

New Albany's city council voted last night, and in spite of One Southern Indiana's last-minute interference ploy on behalf of itself, the result was approval for a resolution and two readings of an ordinance to secede from the combined city-county parks department. Bob Caesar voted against the resolution and for the ordinance, and the smart money has him executing the rarest of all council maneuvers, the King Larry Gambit, by abstaining when the third reading comes due next time.

Prior to the meeting, Matt Nash traced the sources of the city's discontent in another fine newspaper column.

NASH: How should we fund our parks?

... If any of the elected officials in Floyd County say that they were unaware of funding inadequacies in the parks department until this year, they are either lying or just don’t care. A simple search will find request dating back several years from park’s officials. Ms. Fendley has been a member of the county council for nearly six years serving from 2005-2008 and again from 2011 to the present and for part of that time she was vice president of that board. How have they been coming up with the amount that was budgeted over the last few years? Did they just pick an arbitrary number out of thin air?

Matt's conclusion, an eloquent condemnation of the prevailing McAllister/Heavrin mentality of non-governance in the county is required reading.

I am a resident of New Albany and Floyd County. I believe that a vibrant park system with great facilities adds to the lives of all citizens. It is time that the leaders of Floyd County began to understand this fact. For far too long the priorities of our elected officials have revolved around the murder trial of a single individual and the incarceration of criminals in our county. It is time that the taxpaying citizens of New Albany and Floyd County begin to reap the benefits from the tax dollars we pay.

Parks secession: In which One Southern Indiana blatantly interferes in local matters.

Thanks to S for sending this to me. Obviously, NAC is not on the mailing list.

---

Dear 1si Members,

In the spirit of keeping you informed of issues of concern to the business community, we wanted you to be aware that there has been a special City Council meeting called to vote on the breakup of the NAFC Parks Department. Unfortunately, this action would be counter to legislative positions taken by our organization in that it will likely result in less efficient local government.

Our 2013 Legislative Agenda includes the need to streamline current local government so that administrative efficiencies can be achieved by the expansion, standardization and coordination of collaborative purchasing. Vetted by the business members of our advocacy council and approved by our Board of Directors, this Legislative Agenda has been distributed to the 800+ business investors of our organization.

If you would like to attend the meeting or talk with City Council members to discourage the separation, the meeting takes place tonight, October 18, 2012 at 7:15 pm at the City County Building in downtown New Albany .

Sincerely,

Wendy Dant Chesser
President and CEO

Bile and acrimony on tap as city parks secession bid appears on city council agenda.

Suddeath's piece is uncommonly long for the newspaper (1,400 words), and that's good, because this issue isn't simple.

Speaking only for myself, this entire parks issue, from alleged highland/lowland togetherness to serial city/county funding disparities, and not excluding the park board's secretive 007 Agent Clere legislative taxation mission to Burma (or Indianapolis), testifies to the insanity of two decades of the Heavrin/McAllister Power Trip Show, when the budgetary marrow must be gnawed lest any county politician ever be compelled to speak honestly about the necessity of increased revenue.

Thus we come to the Shirley Baird school of governance (yikes): Reluctantly concede the extent of county government’s abject and cynical failure to equally fund parks within the city limits, but conclude that all should be smilingly forgiven in a joyous circle jerk of doubtful future unity; we need only “trust” the same conniving entities who have pulled away the football countless times before, relax, kick back, and enjoy the anticipation of the next time (and there’ll be a next time), when we must laboriously formulate a whole new convoluted Band-Aid of a fiscal plan to celebrate county government’s fresh new resolve to do what it was supposed to do all along, but did not, because it never was held accountable for the previous time.

The devil's in the details, so ...

Vote to split parks slated for tonight in New Albany; Parks board decries Gahan’s choice, says community will suffer from divide, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune)

NEW ALBANY — Since 1994, New Albany and Floyd County have been partners in parks and recreation service. But that could all change after tonight.

A special New Albany City Council meeting has been slated for 7:15 this evening so that two measures can be considered. The first is a resolution calling for the re-establishment of the New Albany Parks Department, and the legislation will require only one vote by the council.

The second measure is an ordinance calling for the abolishment of the current New Albany-Floyd County Parks Department agreement, and it will require three readings by the council.

Fendley on parks funding: "We can’t change what happened in the past."

Floyd County Council member Dana Fendley says that she didn't have all the information until earlier this year. In other news, someone's homework was eaten by a pet hamster.

By the way, wouldn't it be nice if the newspaper linked Fendley's mention of Matt Nash's column to -- that's right, Nash's column?

Never fear: I do it here. Indirectly, of course.

NEWS AND TRIBUNE LETTERS — For Oct.17 ... Council member responds to recent column

... I personally have been in attendance at the parks board meetings and have assured the board that we will be in full compliance with our agreement with the city of New Albany. I should mention that the majority of the Floyd County Council members were not on the council when the funding agreement was initially drawn up, and were only made aware of the details of the agreement earlier this year. Since becoming aware of the requirements, we have paid our fair share for 2012 and will continue to do so in 2013.

This parks suspense is making me want to self-medicate.

The anticipation is building to ketchup-like proportions. What does Parson Clere intend to say about all this park splitting? How on earth can we proceed without wisdom and direction from the only perfect politician this city has produced ... well, since Verle Huffman, at least.

NASH: Has the time come to split the parks?

... If the officials in Floyd County can’t come up with the money to fund the parks department properly, maybe it is time for a split. There are many details to work out. It will be tough in the beginning to launch our city’s new parks department, but maybe the time has come. It is clear that Floyd County elected officials have very little intention on doing what is necessary for a vibrant park system in our community.

Is the city seceding from the NAFC parks department today?

(9:00 a.m. update: According to the News and Tribune, the answer is yes, secession is the mayor's ultimate aim)

The county object most resembling Ft. Sumter may need to be found, and quickly. Come to think of it, this might well be Rep. Clere's blood pressure, considering his involvement in ways to exonerate the county's chronic taxable parks double down v.v. the city.

Bullseye remains affixed to county government in NAFC parks funding fiasco. Anyone got a hankie?

Word.

“The county can stand up there and say ‘we’re the friends of the parks, we’re the supporters of the parks,’ but had the county honored the agreement they had originally, we wouldn’t be where we are today,” (Steve Laduke) said.

From: Parks still a sore spot for New Albany, Floyd County; Closing Community Park has been discussed, by Daniel Suddeath (N and T)

Simple made complicated, yet again. Why?

"There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking."
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

Scott Klink doesn't want to live in the past, and so he seeks an "act of Congress" as redress. But why the persistent amnesia as to the source of the funding imbalance, i.e., county government?

Board chair: Parks district best solution for New Albany and Floyd County; After veto of new agreement, Klink says district would guarantee funding, by Daniel Suddeath (Intrusive Pop Up and Roll Over Journal)

... According to the Gahan administration, the city paid about $4 million more to the parks department than the county since 2004. Under the terms of the contract, the city and county were to evenly fund the department based on population, which has been nearly equal over that span.

Daniel Suddeath reports: Gahan veto stands, 5 - 4.

On Twitter, the News and Tribune's Daniel Suddeath reports that Mayor Gahan's veto of the parks funding agreement with the county stands: 5-4 again, with the necessary sixth vote not materializing.

"Honestly, if Floyd County had been paying what they were supposed to all along, this would not be an issue."

A full two days later, the News and Tribune has finally gotten around to updating the "discussion" on its Saturday editorial about park funding, and it's a doozy. Here's a sprinkling of opinion.

OUR OPINION: Mayor's veto sends wrong message.

Stan Robison (city attorney):
"The Mayor has taken a stand against the way things have always been, and he will stand by his veto to protect the citizens of New Albany against the fleecing it has taken at the hands of the County."

Scott Klink (president of the parks board):
"They must override this veto. We need one of those four 'no' votes to become 'yes' vote."

Steve (?):
"So, editorial board, by your reasoning if all of your subscribers failed to pay for 2 months of newspapers, then they could just work out an agreement to keep getting the Tribune and not pay the 2 month's bill that was owed."

NAC's view came yesterday. We believe it would be a mistake for the council to kill Mayor Gahan's veto tonight, because this issue only so much as hints at far funding larger concerns unlikely to be addressed so long as these temporary patches continue to be applied, and for so long as county government is not held accountable.

Newspaper editorial board: Let's hold hands, drink lemonade and sing happy songs about parks funding.

If I were a Nigerian in need of outside assistance in transferring my funds, I’d direct my e-mails to the following eager and willing aides: Publisher Bill Hanson, Editor Shea Van Hoy and Assistant Editors Chris Morris and Amy Huffman-Branham.

Newspaper editorial board: Let's hold hands, drink lemonade and sing happy songs about parks funding.

Let’s see if my reading comprehension is up to snuff.

The newspaper’s long-dormant editorial board truthfully concedes the extent of county government’s abject and cynical failure to equally fund parks within the city limits, but concludes that all should be smilingly forgiven in a joyous circle jerk of suspect future unity; we need only “trust” the same entities who’ve pulled away the football countless times before, relax, and enjoy the anticipation of the next time (and there’ll be a next time) we’ll have to laboriously formulate a whole new convoluted Band-Aid of a fiscal plan to celebrate county government’s fresh new resolve to do what it was supposed to do all along, but did not, because it never was held accountable for the previous time.

If I were a Nigerian in need of outside assistance in transferring my funds, I’d direct my e-mails to the following eager and willing aides: Publisher Bill Hanson, Editor Shea Van Hoy and Assistant Editors Chris Morris and Amy Huffman-Branham.

At the city council meeting tomorrow night (May 7), apparently there will be a rare "4th reading" of G-12-05: An Ordinance Adopting Interlocal Agreement and Ordinance and Adopting Ordinance Creating a Joint New Albany-Floyd County Park and Recreation Department, as prompted by the mayor's veto. The 3rd reading passed 5-4, as did the famously controversial smoking ordinance in 2008; the latter did not return to council for a veto-busting vote requiring a sixth "yay."

This one is coming back, and owing to the emotions shrouding the parks funding discussion -- a big bundle of undifferentiated feelings posing as facts, in the vein of the newspaper's editorial -- it's easy to imagine the amount of pressure being applied toward flipping a dissenting city council person's vote. NAC believes it would be a mistake to over-ride, because this issue only so much as hints at far larger concerns unlikely to be addressed so long as these temporary patches continue to be applied. Well-meaning is nice. Future-oriented is better, don't you think?

May 5, 2012

OUR OPINION: Mayor’s veto sends wrong message

New Albany Mayor Jeff Gahan decided Monday to veto an ordinance passed last month that establishes a new interlocal agreement between the city and county to fund the New Albany-Floyd County Parks Department.

The mayor has the power to veto ordinances passed by the New Albany City Council. But in this case, the veto stamp should have been left in his desk drawer ...

… He’s right when he says the county had not lived up to the old agreement, initially signed in the early 1990s. According to the administration, the city has paid about $2 million more to the parks department over the past five years than the county. The matter of funding the parks came up last year after the county failed to meet its obligation under the old agreement.

So, the county definitely shoulders a lot of the blame for this ongoing soap opera. But why not cooperate instead of continuing this us vs. them mentality? Why dwell on the past when steps have been made to move forward for the betterment of the residents of the city and county? We do not need this division; we need city and county officials working together to save taxpayers money and provide the best possible living conditions for the residents.

"Gahan vetoes New Albany-Floyd County parks deal."

Interestingly, Mayor Gahan is remembering the past when it comes to parks funding (and I agree we should), but his team urged us to forget the past when the topic was UEA leadership (I disagreed). County officials are coming down squarely on the side of forgetfulness, aren't they?

Gahan vetoes New Albany-Floyd County parks deal; Parks, county officials disappointed, Daniel Suddeath (RollOver PopUp Picayune)


NEW ALBANY — Mayor Jeff Gahan announced Monday he vetoed an ordinance passed in April by the New Albany City Council that established a new interlocal agreement for the New Albany-Floyd County Parks Department.


The measure narrowly passed the council with a 5-4 vote April 19, as the issue has been a point of contention between the city and county ...


New Albany had paid about $2 million more toward the parks system than the county over the past five years, though the existing agreement called for the two entities to split the funding equally based on population, which has been close to even in recent years.


After months of discussion, the Floyd County Council, Floyd County Commissioners and city council approved the new deal in April which called for equal funding mechanisms to be put in place by Oct. 1.


The new agreement would be void if either side failed to meet the funding requirements, but Gahan stated Monday he vetoed the ordinance because the county had failed to honor past parks deals.


“While I vetoed this proposed agreement, we are still currently operating under an agreement which requires equalized funding based on population,” Gahan said. “The city of New Albany will continue to honor our agreements and fully fund the parks department. It is time for the county to do the same for the betterment of all Floyd County.”

To read all about the "immediate reaction of disappointment from county and parks officials," duck the pop-up, dodge the roll-overs, and visit the newspaper's enduringly annoying web site.

County council's Schellenberger finds someone else to blame for his own body's proclivities.

Earth to John Schellenberger: There's no need to blame the newspaper and/or the parks board for "misinformation" in the case of Community Park, not when Ted Heavrin (and Larry McAllister before him -- they were the Martin and Lewis of the County Council, remember?) -- spent the past decade making hints about sell-offs, strip malls and "our way or the highway through it."

John, if you want your furniture shredded, get a cat, and if you want 1940's-era thinking, keeping letting the same two dudes run your council. It's that simple.

Meanwhile, the reporter Morris does his job well and locates the best quote of the night, from council youngster Brad Striegel:

“This is a quality of life issue. Funding will be tough on both sides, but we have an obligation to meet. I’m tired of hearing how the [David] Camm trial is going to hijack quality of life in this area.”

Me, too. Someone buy that man a cigar.

Floyd County OKs parks deal; City Council will take final vote on measure April 19, by Chris Morris (Pop-Up Reproduction Laboratory)

... However, before the final vote, county Councilman John Schellenberger had several questions for NA-FC Parks Board President Scott Klink and Director Roger Jeffers. After those questions were answered, Schellenberger said he didn’t think it was fair to make threats in the newspaper about closing a particular facility or trying to make the county council look like the “bad guy” during the process.

“Why would you say you would close Community Park and not other parks. That misinformation gets people stirred up,” Schellenberger said. “I feel like we are being used as a pawn in all this when it’s a bigger issue. It bothers me that something lands in the Tribune and gets people all stirred up. People read it and think we are going to close Community Park.”