Yep, Mr. Zevon, the local DemoDisneyDixiecrats have some effed-up shizz. It explains their silence in the face of Slick Jeffie's ethical shambles.

The late, great Warren Zevon (2000).

I have a question for my Democratic friends.

In your own personal world -- your life, not the lives of others -- do you believe the end justifies the means?

Do you believe it doesn't matter if people and principles are trampled, so long as you get what you want?

Do the rights and wrongs of the procurement process matter, or is to have and to hold the exciting bright and shiny object enough for you?

How's it working out for you to become accustomed to cringing and looking the other way?

This fall many of my friends will have cast their ballots for Gahan, a mayor who has consistently fudged, bullied and self-monetized his means in justification of his ends.

Friends having done so remain friends all the same, at least on my end. But I harbor the strong suspicion that many of these same voters don't sanction those means embodied by Gahan's political behavior when they pertain to the ends in their own private worlds.

I suppose they tolerate it from Gahan because the daily rationalizations borne of Democratic Party affiliation are all too easy: the "nice" things they choose to see look so good; all politicians are corrupt but he's on OUR team; we can always pay the bills some other time; or least convincing of all, "the Republicans are worse."

This entire year I've been asking the following questions of Democrats. I'd ask them of Gahan himself, although as we know transparency and accessibility are the very least of his considerations -- and he routinely refuses to debate political opponents.

• So tell me, why does Gahan get a pass from you when he can't tell the truth about budgets, rate increases, taxes and TIF debt?
• Is saying that "things look good" satisfactory without asking how they got that way, and who's paying the bills?
• Have you noticed that every street grid "improvement" hailed as a victory for walkability actually enhances car-centrism?
• Why does one man need almost $700,000 in career campaign donations, or to spend more than $200,000 of it in one year?
• Does it bother you that these out-of-town special interest donors receive no-bid contracts and sinecures, just like magic?
• What is there in the Democratic Party platform that encourages "luxury" development to the exclusion of public/affordable housing occupants?
• Is it a healthy civic trend for mayors to bully and harass city employees whose only offense is to opt out from worship of him?
• Isn't the "silo" approach of all decision-making, emanating from a tiny clique at the top of a pyramid, ultimately injurious to our city's success?
• Isn't Gahan's personality cult akin to self-deification, and can this ever be a sign of stable mental health?

The only substantive comment I've received in return all year long came from an Independent/Libertarian, which of course I appreciate. It would be nice to hear a die-hard Democrat answer the preceding questions.

Although the fact of their persistent refusal tells us quite a lot about cognitive dissonance, doesn't it?

---

ON THE AVENUES: Socialists for Seabrook, because we desperately need a new beginning in New Albany.

---

Election 2019: The buying and selling of a city, or our updated master list of 73 Gahan wheel-greasers, a veritable pornographic potpourri of pay-to-play.

These 30 free-spending special interest donors top Jeff Gahan's 2019 pay-to-play campaign finance windfall of $150,000 (so far).

CFA-4 Follies: OMG, just look at Gahan's huge pile of special interest donor cash flowing to out-of-towners.

CARTOON: The News and Tribune's Bill Hanson weighs the relative merits of investigative journalism.

Henderson ethics, schMETHics: Matt Oakley challenges the Floyd County power duopoly. Matt Oakley loses. Turn the page.

On Tuesday evening, county government's entertainment cauldron threatened to approach full boil. It didn't, and the crisis of adulthood passed, but the squirming was chuckle-worthy.

Seems that council member Matt Oakley had announced his determination to shine a light on star prosecutor Keith Henderson's ethical lapses ...

Matt Oakley's assessment of the prosecutor's ethical breakdown doesn't stop with Keith Henderson.

 ... and precisely because other county government operatives were complicit in the containment effort, there was little chance Oakley's resolution would succeed, and it died for lack of a second from any one of the council's four Republicans (Oakley's probably a Maverick Independent by now) and two Democrats.

But of course it died. There is nothing a two-party power duopoly resents more than someone standing outside the fixed system of elites, peskily suggesting that those reposing within the circled wagons undertake the reform of themselves.

Trust me. I know this.

Even the nominal council "Democrats" were having none of it. Brad Striegel and Tom Pickett stared off zombie-eyed into the distance, and why not? Purported Democrats always have played a prominent role in county council's dysfunction, which may or may not be cured by an influx of hospital sale cash. Dixiecrat-wing (nut) heavies Ted Heavrin and Larry McAllister merrily pinched the feeding tube for decades, and were venerated by the self-styled urban Rockefeller "liberals."

On rare occasions one is covered with glory, but more often in dog poo. City council wouldn't police Dan Coffey, and county council will leave Henderson to his own devices, which we can only hope will be culminate in disbarment.

With those Baptist hospital proceeds burning holes in the pockets of all involved, who needs to be reminded about ethics?

Floyd County prosecutor won't have to pay back cash; Resolution asking Keith Henderson to repay legal fees fails, by Papa (Hanson Hole Puncher)

NEW ALBANY — A resolution demanding Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson pay back $27,539 in funds used for his legal fees died for a lack of a second Tuesday night at the Floyd County Council meeting.

Councilman Matt Oakley introduced the resolution. He said Henderson received two payments, for $10,000 and $17,539, for his own personal legal fees and those funds should be repaid.

Matt Oakley's assessment of the prosecutor's ethical breakdown doesn't stop with Keith Henderson.

Keith Henderson's sell-by date fast approaches. To paraphrase Groucho Marx, there'll be joy unconfined. There'll be dancing in the streets, drinking in the saloons, and necking in the parlor.

Guffaws greet Keith Henderson for Circuit Court Judge: "Reprimand recommended against Floyd County Prosecutor ... over actions in David Camm case."

That said, someone needs to patiently explain to the Jeffersonville-billeted crew at Bill Hanson's perennially under-performing ad aggregator that is isn't exactly earth-shattering "breaking" (BREAKING!!!) news when a rival political party's resident graft coordinator demands that Henderson resign on ethical grounds.

Floyd County Democratic Chairman calls for Republican prosecutor to resign.

Spare me the ennui.

Just as a dog licks his balls, Adam Dickey issues proclamations like this one. They're valid only for yawning and stoking a fervent desire that if Evan Bayh actually wins, he'll beam the Boy Wonder with him to DC/Indy/Disney World and end (this particular) recurring local nightmare.

Verily, it's far more entertaining when one of Henderson's fellow Republicans casts him adrift without so much as a leftover lemon to ward off scurvy.

So, what's Matt Oakley up to?

I'm not suggesting he's being insincere, and what he says in his guest column makes perfect sense. I agree with him. However, it's worthy of note that his targets aren't limited to the errant prosecutor.

Maybe he's sniffing a palace coup. Mark Seabrook's getting on, and if Billy "Come Lately" Stewart doesn't win Steve Bush's seat on the board of commissioners, the longtime county fix will be out -- and with it, Henderson's safe haven.

I'll be voting for Dennis O. Roudenbush, the independent candidate for Floyd County 3rd District Commissioner.

Granted, it isn't as though we weren't aware of Henderson's many and varied abuses as prosecutor, and Seabrook's role in ignoring them -- as these posts from 2013 attest.

Keith Henderson and the county's chronic poverty.

Charting the "false narrative" of the Floyd County Commissioners.

Of course, Oakley has viewed this question from another helpful angle, as when he retired from the hospital sale task force.

Oakley asked the county council to remove him from the task force in April, bringing up his real estate deals with Floyd Memorial and his hope to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest.

But let's not be churlish and look gift hearses in the mouth. The Henderson era can't end quick enough, can it?

OAKLEY: Prosecutor ethics violation finding should serve as a wake-up call, by Matt Oakley (guest columnist at CNHI Court Avenue)

The Indiana Supreme Court hearing officer recently issued his report in the pending disciplinary action against Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson. After a lengthy trial on the matter, the hearing officer found that Mr. Henderson had a personal interest (the book deal) while he was still representing the State, a conflict of interest and an ethical violation. A separate complaint also alleged Mr. Henderson made “material statements that were false, dishonest, and Fraudulent” when he submitted invoices for his personal attorney to defend him from ethics charges from this private book deal.

The findings of the report are not just an indictment against our prosecutor but also an indictment of the process of spending taxpayer money in Floyd County. It is often easier to ignore embarrassing problems like this rather than to address the situation, but burying our heads in the sand won’t fix the problem ...

... Next, when inappropriate claims get paid even under the rights process, we should try and rectify the situation immediately. Although it should have happened in 2012, I will ask for a vote to request Mr. Henderson to pay back the $27,539 Floyd County paid to his private attorney for his ethics investigation. The Ethics Commission also alleged that Mr. Henderson’s ethical violations resulted in a delay in three years of the prosecution of David Camm and more than $225,000 in excess costs and expenses to Floyd County. Inaction is not an option unless we want to repeat this unfortunate scenario.

Guffaws greet Keith Henderson for Circuit Court Judge: "Reprimand recommended against Floyd County Prosecutor ... over actions in David Camm case."

Photo from WLKY.

Keith Henderson has been our Floyd County prosecutor since the beginning of time (or around 2002), and currently is attempting to outpace the ethical morass of his own making by running for Floyd County Circuit Judge against another longtime occupant, Judge Terry Cody.

Because in a hotly contested campaign for circuit court judge, no publicity is BAD publicity, right?

But it gets even funnier, because Democratic Party conniver-in-chief Adam Dickey has penned a by-the-same-tired-partisan-numbers press release quoting himself (shock and awe) in recommending Henderson's withdrawal from the November ballot.

“It’s time we elected people of high morals that can help rebuild the trust citizens have lost in their government. Mr. Henderson is not that person.”

For that matter, neither is Dickey's Frankenstein monster of a political money vacuum creation, Jeff Gahan -- but yes, Gahan was voted back into office fair and square, and by the same standard, Henderson should be allowed to be rejected at the polls ... or not.

Perhaps that's what worries Adam so much.

Reprimand recommended against Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson over actions in David Camm case, by Travis Kircher (WDRB)

The hearing officer of the Indiana Disciplinary Commission has recommended that the Indiana Supreme Court issue a public reprimand against Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson over his actions in the David Camm case.

The recommendation came down on Wednesday, Aug. 3.

Specifically, the recommendation found that Henderson's pursuit of a deal to write a book about the case between Camm's second and third trials violated an ethics rule prohibiting attorneys from negotiating publicity rights arising from representation of their clients.

ON THE AVENUES: If we're waiving sewer tap-ins, nothing less than gold faucets will do.

ON THE AVENUES: If we're waiving sewer tap-ins, nothing less than gold faucets will do.

A weekly column by Roger A. Baylor.

At the March 19 meeting of New Albany’s city council, the legislative body that seldom legislates very much any longer was asked by City Hall to approve a TIF area extension to accommodate infrastructure improvements for the prospective Coyle site housing development, which in recent days has been upgraded from “upscale” to “luxury” in terms of hyperbolic descriptors for the apartment units soon to be built there.

Why the semantic escalation?

Probably the dreaded random adjective generator, although as the primary draws closer, expect frequent comparisons to Mobutu Sese Seko’s Kawale palace in Gbadolite, Congo – or in our local New Albanian dialect, “Versailles of the Bungle.”

As is its habit, the council supinely did exactly as it was told, but not before David Duggins, the city’s Standard TIF Area Statistical Incentivization Specialist (STASIS), who once was quoted to the effect that he couldn’t possibly explain the manifest benefits of Jeff Speck’s downtown street network proposals for fear of being proven mistaken in any way, shape or form even on the most minor of points, let slip that the board of New Albany’s sewer utility was “discussing” further enticements to the Coyle site developers to the tune of waiving 150+ sewer tap-in fees … or (according to the newspaper) $200,000.

Diane Benedetti immediately questioned this, reminding Duggins that in a city where affairs of the sanitary sewer are the surest ever proof of Sigmund Freud’s potty doctrines, ironclad historical precedent precludes granting waivers for any construction. As an example, not so long ago, waivers were denied to IU Southeast for its new dormitories. In short, no one gets a break.

I wasn’t there to see it, but Duggins surely rolled his eyes and muttered “yes, ma’am,” fingers tightly crossed behind this back, because he somehow neglected to inform the assembled council that not only had the sewer board “discussed” the waivers, it had touched all four and approved them, along with “what the hell, why not” waivers for both of Mayor Gahan’s signature parks-in-splendid-isolation, on March 12 -- a full week prior to the council meeting.

Like the child whose hands are smeared with cookie batter, did Duggins think no one would find out, or has City Hall’s level of yo-the-fix-is-in nonchalance now reached the point of default hubris?

The sewer board’s vote was 2-0, with the motion introduced by the city engineer Larry Summers in the absence of the board’s chair, who is none other than Mayor Jeff Gahan himself. Evidently the mayoral hologram was undergoing maintenance in a secluded Disney Store factory outlet, affording the very maximum in plausible deniability – and speaking of Uncle Walt, Summers’ motion came at the request of the Redevelopment Commission, which includes among its members Adam Dickey, the chairman of the Floyd County Democratic Party.

Eeeeewww … damn, it smells like sewer gas around here, doesn’t it?

---

Council president Pat McLaughlin, who doubles as co-chair (with Dan Coffey) of the Gahan Jockstrap Conveyance Patrol (no acronym), conceded to the News and Tribune’s Daniel Suddeath that yes, there was a mild “concern” over these new and unexplored precedents, but hey -- what can an elected lackey do, apart from popping the top on an ice-cold Bud Light at the Roadhouse?

Also according to Suddeath, City Hall’s legal team as yet is finding it difficult to unravel the impenetrable thicket of the city’s own ordinances.

Summers is expected to be replaced soon after questions arose as to whether he could serve on the Stormwater and Sewer boards as a paid city employee.

Say what?

We already knew that the convenient Summers’ placement on the Stormwater Board was a two-pronged mistake according to previlaing ordinance, which clearly prohibits a paid city employee from serving, and stipulates that it’s a council appointment in the first place, and not a forum for City Hall’s attorney to be enthusiastically brokering the mayor's fondest wishes.

(B) One member appointed by majority vote of the members of the Common Council, provided that the member shall be a registered professional engineer, and further provided that the member shall not otherwise be a paid or unpaid official or employee of the city.

We also knew that when the issue was raised by this blog, city attorney Shane Gibson promptly and honorably fell on his sword and took one for Team Gahan.

The Storm Water Board and the Sewer Board are both set up under the same Indiana authority. The former board member was on both the Sewer and the Storm Water Boards. When he stepped off the boards, I looked at the Sewer Board membership requirements in the City Ordinance. That Sewer ordinance states one member shall be the City engineer. I let our City engineer know this and his duties as required by the Ordinance. I didn't, however, review or the pull the Storm Water board requirements for members and assumed they were the same since the two boards were established under the same Indiana authority. As I mentioned above, this was an error on my part. We will be taking the necessary actions to remedy this matter.

Except that the Indiana state law establishing sewer board guidelines, which apparently dates from 1981, also prohibits a paid employee from serving.

(a) A sanitary board established under this chapter consists of:

(1) the municipal executive; and

(2) two (2) persons appointed by the municipal legislative body, one (1) of whom must be a registered professional engineer.

The legislative body may not appoint any paid or unpaid municipal officer or employee to the board.

Meanwhile, New Albany’s sewer board staffing ordinance, first enacted in the 1990s when the Federal government firmly pointed out to us that a city our size might wish to treat more than a fraction of its wastewater, appears to deliberately obfuscate the state’s intent … and no one has noticed until now?

(2) Two members, appointed by majority vote of the members of the Common Council, provided that one such member shall be the City Engineer or a registered professional engineer, and further provided that such non City Engineer person shall not be a paid or unpaid official or employee of the city.

I’m no legal bagel, but someone out there other than me surely is asking the same question: How many illegal votes actually have been taken the past 30-odd years on all these boards?

And: If Summers wasn’t supposed to be on the Sewer Board, what about the casual Gahan-less vote on March 12 to break with decades of precedent and waive sewer tap-ins?

Was it legal?

Finally, this: At some point, as one oddball screw-up piles atop another, doesn’t a hands-on mayor genuinely believing in his "fundamentally better" agitprop actually call the press, quote Harry Truman, point to his desk, and make the buck stop there?

Maybe the problem for Gahan is all those bucks, roughly $90,000 of the campaign variety at last count. Or, conversely, maybe taking responsibility voids the hologram’s warranty. In three-plus years, has Gahan yet to acknowledge an error?

Now, about those ivory toilet seats …

So, how does one file a complaint with the Ethics Commission ...

... when there's no mention of the Ethics Commission on the city's own web site (it was established in 2012).

There's down low, and then there's DOWN LOW.

---

§ 33.141  COMPLAINT PROCESS, FILING AND REVIEW BY SECRETARY.

   (A)   Any individual may file a complaint.  The complaint shall be affirmed in writing and signed by the complainant.  The complaint shall state the nature of the alleged violation, the date, time and place of each occurrence, and name of the individual charged with the violation, referred to as the respondent.

   (B)   Complaints shall be filed with the secretary, who shall promptly provide a copy to any persons against whom a violation is alleged.

   (C)   Within 30 days after receipt of a complaint, the secretary shall conduct a preliminary investigation.  The secretary may request that the Ethics Commission extend the time for the completion of the preliminary investigation.  If the Ethics Commission determines that extension is necessary or desirable and would not be prejudicial to the person against whom a violation is alleged, the Ethics Commission shall grant the extension. If the Ethics Commission determines that the preliminary investigation must be completed in less than 30 days in order to avoid prejudice or irreparable harm to the person against whom a violation is alleged, the Ethics Commission shall order the secretary to complete the preliminary investigation in a shorter period of time, and the secretary shall comply.

   (D)   If the secretary determines that the complaint alleges violations of criminal acts, the secretary shall promptly refer the complaint to an appropriate law enforcement agency and the matter may be stayed pending direction from the law enforcement agency.

   (E)   If the secretary determines, after preliminary investigation, that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that a violation has occurred, the secretary shall dismiss the complaint.  If the secretary dismisses the complaint, he or she shall do so in writing, setting forth the facts and the provisions of law upon which the dismissal is based, and provide copies of the written dismissal to the complainant, to the individual charged with the violation, and to the members of the Ethics Commission.  The complainant shall have the right to appeal the decision of the secretary.

   (F)   The secretary shall refer the complaint to the Ethics Commission if, after a preliminary investigation, the secretary does not:

      (1)   Ask for additional time to conduct a more extensive investigation pursuant to division (C);

      (2)   Refer the matter to law enforcement pursuant to division (D); or

      (3)   Dismiss the complaint pursuant to division (E).

(Ord. G-12-17, passed 8-16-2012)