The national media discovers SoIn: "3 Indiana Judges Suspended After White Castle Brawl That Left 2 Of Them Wounded."

Social media debates on this topic began shortly after the incident in May, then subsided, only to explode into the stratosphere when the story finally went national.

Opinion seems divided into two distinct strands of thought. The first, advocated by those who know the three judges personally, is that everyone deserves another chance. The other, expressed by the Indiana Supreme Court, upholds the existence of a higher bar (pun unintended) for those donning judicial robes.

The cynical way to look at it would be to shrug; all other institutions have become degraded in the last quarter-century, and nowadays nationwide there are more barely qualified judges than flavors of hard seltzer.

Who cares if they drink and carouse? Haven't we all?

Perhaps a less hopeless take is to assert that without a rediscovery of useful core ethics to guide the judiciary, their verdicts are rendered into nonsense.

I'm reminded of the late father of a close friend, who was a banker at a time when banking was local and not a by-product of neoliberal self-immolation. In short, my friend's dad was a banker 24 hours a day, not merely eight. He dressed, thought and lived the job, because if a banker behaved like a rock star out in public, it reduced confidence in the institution guarding one's savings.

I realize the relationship between a banker and his community was more complicated than this, even then. It doesn't change the fact that my friend's father recognized a responsibility, and knew his personal honor was at stake.

Southern Indiana currently is a laughingstock owing to the tale of the strip-club-seeking drunken judges and their ill-advised journey to White Castle. Fortunately for everyone involved, no one died and the ignominy will be short-lived in a nation with the collective attention span of a moth.

Is a suspension and some form of penance enough punishment for these judges? I've no idea.

If their own case came before them, how would they decide it?   

3 Indiana Judges Suspended After White Castle Brawl That Left 2 Of Them Wounded, by Laurel Wamsley (NPR)

Back in May, three Indiana judges got into a fight. It was the crescendo of an incident brimming with colorful details: a gaggle of judges drinking the night before a judicial conference, a failed attempt to visit a strip club called the Red Garter, a brawl in the parking lot of an Indianapolis White Castle ...

SHANE'S EXCELLENT NEW WORDS: In which we consider the meaning of "wild child."

With hunger at her heels
Freedom in her eyes
She dances on her knees
Pirate prince at her side
Staring into the hollow idol’s eye

This song by the Doors is 50 years old, and Jim Morrison is still very much dead, but I never really gave much thought to the concept of a "wild child" until earlier in the week, when someone came to my door in the guise of a Girl Scout selling Rice Krispies Treats, ignored the "Get Off My Porch" sign, and mentioned "wild child" as a potential topic for this very column about the wonderful world of words.

A wild child is a young person who is considered high spirited and fearlessly reckless, likely to act spontaneously, often doing things they might later regret. This is different from a feral child, which is a child who has lived in isolation from human contact from a very young age.

Back in my day, at the tail end of the crazed Sixties and amid the onset of the stoned Seventies, there seemed to be quite a few possessors of "wild child" characteristics.

As aging set in, I'd occasionally found myself lifting an eyebrow at the antics of the children (and later the grandchildren) of my peers: "Got yourself a wild child, I see. But I'm sure he/she will grow out of it."

More recently, when surveying the conceptual carnage at the New Albany Housing Authority: "He may be the head of an important local agency charged with the lives of real people, but he's still a wild child at heart."

Sons and daughters of privilege seem particularly prone to this condition. I'm not sure why, but we've all seen it. At times, they even grow out of it.

Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 9: Dan Coffey is less than zero without Jeff Gahan actively enabling him -- again, again and again.

LAST: Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 8: Open thread: City council meeting of Monday, February 2 (3 February 2009).

After nearly five minutes of deep reflection, following an afternoon spent feeling as though I might vomit at any moment -- such is the revulsion that the preceding chapters of New Albany's eternally recurring political "business as usual" have engendered -- I can think of no comprehensive way of summarizing the sheer toxicity of the twenty-year partnership between the faux urbanist mayor and coiled copperhead councilman, save for this Harvey "Two Face" Dent view from the Batman comics.

I don't have the Photoshop skills to do it right (heck, I don't even have Photoshop), but your imagination should suffice. The only problem is determining which half is which.

Matt Lorch, if you're reading, thanks for your service. It's small consolation that so many other victims of the local Democratic Party's rapidly declining "machine" have fallen before you, though at least there are likely to be fewer in the future, because a "machine" that must rely on the likes of Dan Coffey for routine maintenance is destined for history's landfill.

The sooner is lands there, the better. Does it really matter whether anything rises from Adam Dickey's ashes?

All the links in the series are here:

Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 1: Gavel passed and triumphant Wizard on best behavior as council meets (6 January 2009).

Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 2: Ulrich out, Robison in as city council attorney (15 January 2009).

Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 3: What The F@#* Opie? Ya Ain't Seen Nothun Yet! (16 January 2009).

Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 4: The new conjoined councilmen are Coffey and Gahan (17 January 2009).

Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 5: Did you know that humanity poses the greatest threat to the natural habitat of copperheads? (22 January 2009).

Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 6: Let's hear it from the council: Can taxpayers speak openly during their time, or does the Wizard decide who is heard? (24 January 2009).

Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 7: Hot toadstools and cold cappuccino (29 January 2009).

Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 8: Open thread: City council meeting of Monday, February 2 (3 February 2009).

Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 9: Dan Coffey is less than zero without Jeff Gahan actively enabling him -- again, again and again.

Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 8: Open thread: City council meeting of Monday, February 2 (3 February 2009).

Joined at the hip. (2 February 2009)

LAST: Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 7: Hot toadstools and cold cappuccino (29 January 2009).

These final three installments of the story (two blog and one newspaper) serve as reminders of who was willing to speak openly about Dan Coffey's misbehavior (that'd be John Gonder), and those who weren't ... or, everyone else involved, to be precise.

Neither for the first time nor the last, New Albany's elected council chose to protect its own rather than offer evidence of a pulse. The trend continues to this very day; witness the manner by which all parties involved with the Bicentennial Commission are cooperating with each other to ensure that NA Confidential doesn't see the records.

It's all the same people.

It's always all the same people.

And that's why the results -- that's right: they're always the same.

---

Live from the council chamber.

2 February 2009

The mayor is about ten minutes into his speech ... but the highlight of the night has been CM John Gonder's passionate calling-out of council kingpin Dan Coffey.

Granted, the remainder of the council sat on its hands. Yes, Coffey himself meekly thanked Gonder, perhaps because he didn't understand the Latin phrase Gonder used. It appears that no censure will be forthcoming. But Gonder did much good by not permitting the topic to be swept under the rug, as undoubtedly the default mechanism would have guaranteed.

A formal rebuke is necessary. Yet, we owe Gonder.

---

Open thread: City council meeting of Monday, February 2.

3 February 2009

Thanks to the library's newly powerful Wi-Fi signal, I was able to post live from the council chambers last night. It was slapdash, but I'm not much of a typist.

In contrast to so many previous spectacles, the meeting was professional and business-like to the point to befuddlement. It was like watching a European art house flick as opposed to an American car chase epic.

It should be noted that council president Dan Coffey appeared to have been sedated. He sat expressionless through colleague John Gonder's brilliant, dispassionate public explication of Coffey's January 15 meltdown. Coffey similarly endured my later questions about public speaking rights and Bluegill's subsequent request that the council publicly rebuke the president so as to establish a principle that remains so elusive in New Albany: There are consequences for bad behavior.

Both Gonder and NAC's co-editor correctly stated that Coffey had lied to the police about his behavior at Studio's, and Coffey did not deny it, which I plainly consider an admission of guilt, if implicit. There were witnesses, and yet the council president chose to provide the police with pure fiction.

If one lies in such a manner to the police, is this not an example of hindering a police investigation?

Isn't this fact alone grounds for the council to officially and publicly ensure its loose cannon of a president?

The point is this: Coffey obviously has been taken to school since the previous meeting, and last night, he did not contest any of the statements made in his presence. Yes, he took his medicine like an adult, and that's admirable in a limited sense.

But he did not apologize for his behavior.

He should. If he doesn't, the council should take action to police itself.

What do you think?

---

Coffey criticized for Studio’s incident (Daniel Suddeath in the Tribune)

3 February 2009

 ... Councilman John Gonder said Council President Dan Coffey’s reaction to two residents during and after the Jan. 15 meeting “crossed the line.”

Coffey became engaged with Mark Cassidy, a resident and former member of a redistricting committee, during the January meeting when Cassidy asked about council progress on forming a new redistricting body.

The confrontation led to Cassidy being gaveled down from the podium before he could read a prepared statement.

Following the meeting, Coffey and resident Jeff Gillenwater were involved in a debate at Studio’s Grille and Pub revolving around redistricting that resulted in Gillenwater filing a police report claiming he felt threatened by Coffey.

Gonder said Monday that the council president must be held to a higher standard. Coffey did not react to Gonder’s comments and he was the only council member to say something about the two events.

But Mayor Doug England mentioned better relationships between council members and the public during his State of the City address. Additionally, Gillenwater and resident Roger Baylor made statements to the council about what transpired.

Gillenwater — standing just a few feet away from Coffey — called for the council to make corrective measures regarding its president. He questioned Coffey’s take on the situation by saying the council president “reported events falsely to the police and falsely reported the events to [The Evening News and Tribune].”

But Coffey did not respond to Gillenwater’s statement either, only saying “thank you Mr. Gillenwater” when he concluded.

---

NEXT: Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 9: Dan Coffey is less than zero without Jeff Gahan actively enabling him -- again, again and again.

Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 6: Let's hear it from the council: Can taxpayers speak openly during their time, or does the Wizard decide who is heard? (24 January 2009).

LAST: Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 5: Did you know that humanity poses the greatest threat to the natural habitat of copperheads? (22 January 2009).

Let's rephrase the question for 2017: Can taxpayers speak openly during their "agenda" and non-agenda" council time, or does Pat McLaughlin decide who is heard?

It's a trick question, because McLaughlin doesn't make decisions without the approval of his wet nurses. More on that in a later installment.

For now, it's enough to know that among the many points of order shared by Jeff Gahan and Dan Coffey, prime among these is an all-encompassing aversion to dialogue. It's why Coffey screams at council speakers, and also why Gahan rarely emerges from his command bunker.

It's also worth recalling that throughout this period of time in early 2009, Gahan and Coffey constantly reinforced each other by upholding the principle that if citizens don't stand for public office, they aren't the sort of citizens who merit engagement in the courtesy dialogue.

How dare mere taxpayers take an interest in redistricting?

You think Trump invented totalitarian knee-jerks? Gahan and Coffey just might be receiving residuals from The Donald.

---

Let's hear it from the council: Can taxpayers speak openly during their time, or does the Wizard decide who is heard?

24 January 2009

My memory is hazy as to when the city council agenda was altered to include “miscellaneous communications” at meeting’s end. An admittedly cursory glance at archived minutes suggests this “non-agenda item” speaking time first appeared at the beginning of 2007, although I persist in thinking that the topic came up earlier than that.

It is a recurring feature of council meetings – in fact, of most if not all political discourse, here or elsewhere – for elected officials to pay lip service to the principle of honoring and serving the taxpayer. Naturally, this brings up the side issue of why only taxpayers are eligible for service, but the point remains that of all the conceivable ways that a councilman might observe this dictum, sitting quietly and listening for five minutes while a taxpayer speaks to the assembled body strikes me as the barest of minimums.

As was made clear last Thursday, Dan Coffey cannot even achieve the bare minimum when it comes to the notion of free and open speech for the taxpayer, although the current council president has never hesitated to reference his obligation to the taxpayer during the act of filibustering, grandstanding or scratching the anti-intellectual itch that feeds his all too frequent, apparently uncontrollable frenzies.

As I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, it isn’t as if Coffey’s totalitarian impulses have never before been witnessed. Back in 2005, when for the very first time I decided to make comments during the public communications portion of the meeting, Coffey interrupted me, disagreed with me, and hectored me from his seat near then-president Gahan … who sat passively upon his gavel.

Almost four years later, this time as the council’s president, Coffey treated Mark Cassidy in precisely the same way. Not only did Gahan – Geppetto to Coffey’s Pinocchio – again sit silently, but so did the remainder of the council, many of whom subsequently have suggested that Coffey’s behavior disturbed them.

My question to the council: If so, and when confronted by damaging loutishness, why sit passively and do nothing?

Those members of the city council who are not animated by vendettas, and who are capable of comporting themselves with the professionalism and dignity demanded of those who have been elected to public office, are sorely in need of a reality check. Each time that Dan Coffey embarrasses the council without correction or rebuke, he is, in effect, branding the council’s “product” – and the image he is giving the product, whether the council’s image or the city’s itself, is tantamount to the consumer’s reaction upon encountering a jar of peanut butter with the words “now with salmonella” printed boldly on the label.

Geppetto apparently likes his creation just fine, although why is a mystery for the ages, but for the remainder of the council, it’s time now to lead and to do something, not merely be content to wave blank sheets of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement stationary at the ogre and say, “don’t let it happen again, or we’re going to do something!”

Do it now, and send a message to the people in this city who genuinely are working toward a better future that you actually get it.

Beginning on February 2nd, I intend to avail myself of miscellaneous communications time at every opportunity. As a taxpayer, and in consideration of the council’s own speaking policy, I will be approaching the podium with the expectation of five uninterrupted minutes in which to enlighten our elected representatives on a wide variety of topics. I may read from the phone book, or quote passages of HL Mencken’s on the subject of political cupidity. Perhaps a verbatim run-through of my latest column will strike me as appropriate, or a recital of a previous meeting’s minutes.

I may even have my five-minute appearances filmed, and post them on YouTube.

The question: Is this my right as a taxpayer, or isn’t it?

We know how Dan "Copperhead" Coffey would answer this question … but what about the other council members, whose stock plunges further with each passing day of inaction?

"Peace" in our time ... or finally doing the right thing?

---

NEXT: Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 7: Hot toadstools and cold cappuccino (29 January 2009).

Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 5: Did you know that humanity poses the greatest threat to the natural habitat of copperheads? (22 January 2009).

LAST: Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 4: The new conjoined councilmen are Coffey and Gahan (17 January 2009).

In January of 2009, my short-lived Tribune column began its run. It was suspended in 2011, when I ran for at-large city council. I was defeated in the primary, and while then-editor Steve Kozarovich had promised me the column would resume, by the time the election was finished, CNHI had merged the Tribune with the Evening News.

Goodbye, column. Cue the excuses, and pass the Astroglide.

At the time, I was determined to write a column about it, and to Kozarovich's credit, it went through after a rewrite. It's hard to imagine today's milquetoast management group having the cojones.

Most of us understood that Dan Coffey's abuses would be swept under an already tattered and stained carpet. Looking back, it's depressing to see that we also plainly grasped the Groundhog Day scenario to come. Jeff Gahan may not be the only New Albany politician to "use" Coffey's services for his own benefit -- although he's the most shamelessly and egregiously serial about it.

In 2017, we see it yet again.  

---

Did you know that humanity poses the greatest threat to the natural habitat of copperheads?

22 January 2009

I’d like to link you through to today’s Tribune coverage of the events of last Thursday evening, when the president of the city council did what comes naturally, which is to say he reacted to the themes of a discussion by getting physical, likening himself to a venomous snake and vowing to strike when least expected, but of course Dan Coffey denied all wrongdoing when questioned by the police after a report was filed, which means that in the end, Coffey did the very same thing that he claimed gravely offended him when our friend Jeff Gillenwater noted aloud that Coffey was lying, although in deference to the councilman’s skewed vocabulary, I prefer to call it the daily practice of willful mendacity, but you’ll have to wait until the story appears on-line to draw your own conclusions.

It hasn’t appeared yet, but when it does, I’ll patch you through here.

Earlier I wrote that last week’s incidents (let’s not forget Coffey’s cowardly and inappropriate gaveling of Mark Cassidy during non-agenda item public speaking time) would form the basis of my Tribune column today. I wrote the piece and submitted it, but after conferring with the publisher, the column has been saved for another week pending suggested revisions. You’ll hear no disagreement from me. They’re the journalism pros, and if I don’t learn something from the experience of writing a weekly column, it isn’t worth my time to give it a try. I’ll rewrite. If I can run the piece there, I will. If not, I’ll run it here.

The one thing I will not under any circumstances do is to refrain from shining as bright a light as I’m humanly capable on councilman Coffey’s congenital political obstructionism, on his habitual bullying of those with whom he disagrees, on his misconceptions and misunderstandings, and on the simple fact that insofar as he is able to pose (incorrectly) as the face of New Albany, it is a repugnant and self-defeating image for all of us, in his district or out.

Dan Coffey makes us all look bad, and I’m not willing to accept it without dissent. We can only hope that the council, and perhaps even Coffey’s patron Jeff Gahan, gets the memo. There are good people serving on the council, and if they are truly serious about their roles, duties and legacies, they will remove Coffey as council president. His actions constitute bad faith. His actions have humiliated the council numerous times in the past, and they did again last week.

Does any sitting council member really believe that it won’t happen again in the future?

One, maybe two … and that's a sad commentary on prevailing standards of decency.

---

NEXT: Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 6: Let's hear it from the council: Can taxpayers speak openly during their time, or does the Wizard decide who is heard? (24 January 2009).

Matt Nash on Dan Coffey: "His views are backward and repugnant."

It's lovely how the ostensibly local newspaper almost always lets its guest columnists do the heavy lifting as it focuses forever elsewhere, but something's better than nothing.

Make no mistake: These are spot-on, powerful words written by Matt Nash.

His father the doyen should consider reading them. How hard can it possibly be for our local Democratic Party to state publicly that Dan Coffey's words and actions do not reflect the party's core ethos?

NASH: An embarrassment for the council, by Matt Nash (Jeffersonville First)

In a few short weeks, I will celebrate six years of writing this weekly column. In one of those very early columns, I sat down at my old computer and typed out a column about a New Albany city councilman whose antics were surly, something that should grab the attention of his constituents and undoubtedly get him systematically booted from the council.

It seems like only yesterday. Today, I am again writing about District 1 Councilman Dan Coffey.

Open thread: City council meeting of Monday, February 2.

Thanks to the library's newly powerful Wi-Fi signal, I was able to post live from the council chambers last night. It was slapdash, but I'm not much of a typist.

In contrast to so many previous spectacles, the meeting was professional and business-like to the point to befuddlement. It was like watching a European art house flick as opposed to an American car chase epic.

It should be noted that council president Dan Coffey appeared to have been sedated. He sat expressionless through colleague John Gonder's brilliant, dispassionate public explication of Coffey's January 15 meltdown. Coffey similarly endured my later questions about public speaking rights and Bluegill's subsequent request that the council publicly rebuke the president so as to establish a principle that remains so elusive in New Albany: There are consequences for bad behavior.

Both Gonder and NAC's co-editor correctly stated that Coffey had lied to the police about his behavior at Studio's, and Coffey did not deny it, which I plainly consider an admission of guilt, if implicit. There were witnesses, and yet the council president chose to provide the police with pure fiction.

If one lies in such a manner to the police, is this not an example of hindering a police investigation?

Isn't this fact alone grounds for the council to officially and publicly ensure its loose cannon of a president?

The point is this: Coffey obviously has been taken to school since the previous meeting, and last night, he did not contest any of the statements made in his presence. Yes, he took his medicine like an adult, and that's admirable in a limited sense.

But he did not apologize for his behavior.

He should. If he doesn't, the council should take action to police itself.

What do you think?

New Albanian political lessons, ice-cold Coffey, and "Frost-Nixon."

It is an act of consummately ironic timing that Great Escape, New Albany’s exurban cinema, has seen fit to debut the film “Frost-Nixon” only days after 1st district councilman Dan Coffey’s recent dual public meltdowns in the council chamber and Studio’s family room.

I’ll get back to the Wizard momentarily.

First, and happily, director Ron Howard’s movie adaptation of the 2006 stage play is a resounding success, boasting insanely fine performances by Frank Langella eerily channeling Richard Nixon, and Michael Sheen as David Frost, the supposedly lightweight British television presenter whose legendary 1977 interviews of the deposed American chief executive are quite simply the stuff of legend.

Go see it. You will not be disappointed.

These many years later, it remains difficult to separate Nixon the man from Nixon the political operator. His stultifying arrogance was balanced by unconcealed self-loathing, his crippling self-deception countered by a brutally honest knowledge of his own damaged character, and his frequently keen insights into the character of others blindsided by a debilitating paranoia.

But Nixon’s undoubted skills are what make his personality and career compelling in the theatrical sense. From ancient Greek dramatists to Shakespeare, there is the realization that weakness and personal flaws alone are not sufficient to derive universal truth, primarily because they’re far too common in the human race. We see them all the time, sans nothing redemptive.

With Nixon, there is another dimension, one of genuine talent coexisting with the ever-germinating seeds of his own destruction. Without complexity, Nixon is useful for little beyond trite caricature. Without ability, he becomes just another over-reaching and hackneyed village wannabeen … which brings me to you-know-who.

New Albany’s own recurring civic disgrace, who’d be back on the street if we’d yet determined how to go about impeaching him, will never command six figures with an interview, although Steve Price might commit to a chat over iced tea at Bob Evan’s.

I freely confess to an inability to offer concrete proof of this assertion, but it is my opinion that insofar as Dan Coffey knows history at all – a questionable proposition, I might add – he almost surely sees elements of himself in a typically wrongheaded, romanticized view of Nixon.

Now, lest there be any misunderstanding, it must be conceded that this is true, although only insofar as Coffey’s tendencies accurately mirrors Nixon’s flaws of anger, paranoia and manipulative scheming. Unfortunately, any other more positive connections are purely imaginary in any remotely constructive sense.

Yes, an exhumed Richard Nixon, magically reanimated and transported by garlic-lined coffin to New Albany in the present day, might be indistinguishable from Dan Coffey in terms of obstruction of justice, Constitutional chicanery and tactical dirty tricks; however, even a dead Tricky Dicky would possess several useful characteristics that Coffey never will: Sufficient brainpower, working knowledge, political acumen and the possibility of achieving something during those rare times when the customarily emasculated “good” angel is at long last able to interrupt the daily dialogue with the “bad” one.

We’re being asked to exercise patience, and it has been noted that just because words are not said aloud, and for public consumption, it doesn’t mean that our decent, law-abiding council persons are not earnestly discussing what to do about Coffey’s latest demonstrations of his unsuitability for leadership.

The problem is that this isn’t a solution. Rather, it’s more of the same sort of problem that lies at the heart of our political paralysis. Disappointingly, it’s more of the same opaqueness, more of the same backroom dealing, and more of the same political class mentality that substitutes deals for dialogue.

Nixon’s overdue denouement was public, not private. Coffey’s should be, too. Anything less is the New Albany Syndrome, and we all know where that’s gotten us, don’t we?

Let's hear it from the council: Can taxpayers speak openly during their time, or does the Wizard decide who is heard?

My memory is hazy as to when the city council agenda was altered to include “miscellaneous communications” at meeting’s end. An admittedly cursory glance at archived minutes suggests this “non-agenda item” speaking time first appeared at the beginning of 2007, although I persist in thinking that the topic came up earlier than that.

It is a recurring feature of council meetings – in fact, of most if not all political discourse, here or elsewhere – for elected officials to pay lip service to the principle of honoring and serving the taxpayer. Naturally, this brings up the side issue of why only taxpayers are eligible for service, but the point remains that of all the conceivable ways that a councilman might observe this dictum, sitting quietly and listening for five minutes while a taxpayer speaks to the assembled body strikes me as the barest of minimums.

As was made clear last Thursday, Dan Coffey cannot even achieve the bare minimum when it comes to the notion of free and open speech for the taxpayer, although the current council president has never hesitated to reference his obligation to the taxpayer during the act of filibustering, grandstanding or scratching the anti-intellectual itch that feeds his all too frequent, apparently uncontrollable frenzies.

As I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, it isn’t as if Coffey’s totalitarian impulses have never before been witnessed. Back in 2005, when for the very first time I decided to make comments during the public communications portion of the meeting, Coffey interrupted me, disagreed with me, and hectored me from his seat near then-president Gahan … who sat passively upon his gavel.

Almost four years later, this time as the council’s president, Coffey treated Mark Cassidy in precisely the same way. Not only did Gahan – Geppetto to Coffey’s Pinocchio – again sit silently, but so did the remainder of the council, many of whom subsequently have suggested that Coffey’s behavior disturbed them.

My question to the council: If so, and when confronted by damaging loutishness, why sit passively and do nothing?

Those members of the city council who are not animated by vendettas, and who are capable of comporting themselves with the professionalism and dignity demanded of those who have been elected to public office, are sorely in need of a reality check. Each time that Dan Coffey embarrasses the council without correction or rebuke, he is, in effect, branding the council’s “product” – and the image he is giving the product, whether the council’s image or the city’s itself, is tantamount to the consumer’s reaction upon encountering a jar of peanut butter with the words “now with salmonella” printed boldly on the label.

Geppetto apparently likes his creation just fine, although why is a mystery for the ages, but for the remainder of the council, it’s time now to lead and to do something, not merely be content to wave blank sheets of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement stationary at the ogre and say, “don’t let it happen again, or we’re going to do something!”

Do it now, and send a message to the people in this city who genuinely are working toward a better future that you actually get it.

Beginning on February 2nd, I intend to avail myself of miscellaneous communications time at every opportunity. As a taxpayer, and in consideration of the council’s own speaking policy, I will be approaching the podium with the expectation of five uninterrupted minutes in which to enlighten our elected representatives on a wide variety of topics. I may read from the phone book, or quote passages of HL Mencken’s on the subject of political cupidity. Perhaps a verbatim run-through of my latest column will strike me as appropriate, or a recital of a previous meeting’s minutes.

I may even have my five-minute appearances filmed, and post them on YouTube.

The question: Is this my right as a taxpayer, or isn’t it?

We know how Dan "Copperhead" Coffey would answer this question … but what about the other council members, whose stock plunges further with each passing day of inaction?

"Peace" in our time ... or finally doing the right thing?

Was "Coffey Lied" an album by Steely Dan?

Or is it the overdue end to another reign of error? Only Jeff Gahan knows for sure, but here’s the long-awaited link to yesterday’s Tribune coverage of the Great Coffeyhead Implosion of 2009:

New Albany City Council President Coffey named, not charged in police report, by Daniel Suddeath.

According to the report, Gillenwater claimed Coffey told him “I’ll catch up with you later and get my revenge. I’m like a Copperhead [snake], I’ll strike when you least expect it.”

Coffey told police that no threats were made. He said Tuesday he never made that statement to Gillenwater and there was no reason for him to feel endangered.

It occurs to me that CM Coffey gets away with the perpetual gyrations and bullying obstructionism because there’s always someone on the council or in city government who has swallowed the bait, drinks the Kool-Aid and chooses to believe that Coffey actually possesses enough political clout to make good on his threats. His bluffs seldom get called, and because they aren’t, the impression is given that he’s really a certifiable force to be reckoned with, when in reality, there’s only ceaseless blow without the requisite "do something" show.

The city suffers yet another embarrassment, would-be players like the previous council president deny responsibility for their poor gamesmanship, Coffey lives to bluff another day, and the cycle repeats endlessly.

Why on earth would the council wait until he ticking time bomb detonates to do something about it?

Did you know that humanity poses the greatest threat to the natural habitat of copperheads?

I’d like to link you through to today’s Tribune coverage of the events of last Thursday evening, when the president of the city council did what comes naturally, which is to say he reacted to the themes of a discussion by getting physical, likening himself to a venomous snake and vowing to strike when least expected, but of course Dan Coffey denied all wrongdoing when questioned by the police after a report was filed, which means that in the end, Coffey did the very same thing that he claimed gravely offended him when our friend Jeff Gillenwater noted aloud that Coffey was lying, although in deference to the councilman’s skewed vocabulary, I prefer to call it the daily practice of willful mendacity, but you’ll have to wait until the story appears on-line to draw your own conclusions.

It hasn’t appeared yet, but when it does, I’ll patch you through here.

Earlier I wrote that last week’s incidents (let’s not forget Coffey’s cowardly and inappropriate gaveling of Mark Cassidy during non-agenda item public speaking time) would form the basis of my Tribune column today. I wrote the piece and submitted it, but after conferring with the publisher, the column has been saved for another week pending suggested revisions. You’ll hear no disagreement from me. They’re the journalism pros, and if I don’t learn something from the experience of writing a weekly column, it isn’t worth my time to give it a try. I’ll rewrite. If I can run the piece there, I will. If not, I’ll run it here.

The one thing I will not under any circumstances do is to refrain from shining as bright a light as I’m humanly capable on councilman Coffey’s congenital political obstructionisms, on his habitual bullying of those with whom he disagrees, on his misconceptions and misunderstandings, and on the simple fact that insofar as he is able to pose (incorrectly) as the face of New Albany, it is a repugnant and self-defeating image for all of us, in his district or out.

Dan Coffey makes us all look bad, and I’m not willing to accept it without dissent. We can only hope that the council, and perhaps even Coffey’s patron Jeff Gahan, gets the memo. There are good people serving on the council, and if they are truly serious about their roles, duties and legacies, they will remove Coffey as council president. His actions constitute bad faith. His actions have humiliated the council numerous times in the past, and they did again last week.

Does any sitting council member really believe that it won’t happen again in the future?

One, maybe two … and that's a sad commentary on prevailing standards of decency.

For the sake of progress and civility, Dan Coffey must be censured by the city council.

The facts are undisputed.

Last Thursday evening, Dan Coffey, who is New Albany’s council president, first refused to permit a citizen to speak during the meeting time allotted for it, and then afterward both verbally and physically accosted another citizen in a public place.

Both citizens are taxpayers. Imagine that, and note how it is so conveniently forgotten by the troglodytes who typically rush to the defense of such tactics.

In correspondence over the weekend, several friends and readers contributed opinions on these events, ranging from the hope that correction will come from within the same council that acquiesced in elevating Coffey, to the view that diplomacy should be allowed to run its course, and including the sensible advice that we all begin wearing wires around the clock and posting hidden cameras in preparation for the next “60 Minutes” (if not YouTube) moment.

Coffey’s behavior was so wrong, and on so many levels, that the metaphors with New Albany’s crippling primitivism would be obvious to cavemen with far better manners than Coffey’s, although they might yet elude New Albanians accustomed to congenitally low standards of office holding.

And, it’s hardly the first time for such disgraceful displays, to which I can personally attest. Once upon a time roughly a year ago, Coffey paused from grandstanding during a council meeting to duck low behind Bob Caesar’s chair, look right at me, and mouth the words, “I’ll kick your ass.”

I'm quite sure he would try, and this, my friends, is the man that Jeff “he who would be king” Gahan regards as suited for a position of leadership in a city of 37,000 people. I believe that in this context, Gahan is an accessory to last Thursday’s civic embarrassment. He has enabled the boorishness and helped place it in a position to make us all look like dullards.

Why put us through it, Jeff?

How does this help us shed our reputation as laughing stock?

Recall that in essence, Coffey is council president because Gahan bizarrely finds the unthinkable to be somehow useful according to the hidden master political strategy that Gahan has never once been willing to share with those members of the community who by all rights should be Gahan’s natural political allies, but who have been summarily abandoned during his speedy descent into the dark side.

Gahan might sincerely believe that Coffey has something constructive to offer, or maybe his intent has been to neutralize Coffey with just such a damaging fall, but I believe that either way, the events of Thursday, January 15 are sufficient to question Coffey’s suitability for office and the veracity of Gahan’s judgment in back-room maneuvering.

You can rationalize it any way you like, but if you believe that Coffey serving as president removes him from a position to inflict mischief, this belief has already been proven wrong. If you believe that he can be co-opted for your own gain, you’re quite likely to be disappointed, too. Coffey serves Coffey, and he has been doing it for so long that his most recent ill-tempered bullying seems little more than par for the degraded course he’s always played.

Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and Coffey gotta dispense self-aggrandizing malice. In some ways, it’s a yawner ... unless, of course, you're the one actually being threatened by an elected official who apparently didn't get the memo and doesn't think that human decency -- not to mention rule of law -- applies to him.

Speaking personally, I’ve spent two years mortgaging my life in order to expand or business into a downtown that has been moribund for most of my adult life. I’ve chosen to do this for two reasons. First, I believe it will be successful, and we’ll make a profit. Second, I want to do my bit to get us through an open window of opportunity and make downtown live again. It’s a risk, but also an opportunity, and I’m not the only one who sees it.

I’ve tried to talk other people into taking the same chance … and then they see the council president hiking his leg and urinating on free speech. I volunteer my time to two economic development entities, and then the same council president tells me that the only way for me to participate properly is to run for council; otherwise, I’m to have no say.

Granted, Coffey isn’t the council representative for the precinct where the new business will be located, but his closest sycophant, Steve Price, is.

To top it off, Gahan, the council representative for the area where my existing business is located, has spent the past year consistently acting against my personal and professional interests, and recently enabled the ascension of the council member who’s now doing the former president’s territorial pissing for him.

And … consider that if the current council president lacks the basic self-restraint to control his anger, avoid physical contact and refrain from verbal threats directed at a private citizen in a public place, why should I or anyone else put personal safety and business investment dollars at risk by locating anywhere close to his sphere of influence?

Rational people will recognize that without investments made by business owners like me, there is no hope whatever of Coffey’s (or Price’s) neighborhood ever improving, and yet he harbors such depths of ignorance that it’s a deal he’s willing to accept … and, in perhaps the most delicious irony of all, this elected official who works tirelessly to frighten away anyone in a position to bolster the local economy serves on the Redevelopment Commission.

Damned right I’m concerned.

This time, Coffey needs to answer for his transgressions, and in a big way. Permit me this opportunity to call for his removal as council president and a formal censure on the part of his colleagues, who by doing so might yet indicate to the rest of us that they support progress in the city of New Albany.

It is long past the time to end Coffey's habitual bullying in and out of the council chamber, isn’t it?