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 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 3: What The F@#* Opie? Ya Ain't Seen Nothun Yet! (16 January 2009).

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

The second council meeting of 2009 was when the Democratic Party fix hit the fan, as Dan Coffey tactlessly shouted down a speaker during public input time ... but the Wizard was just warming up for the main event to come at the now defunct Studio's.

I missed it all. It was the time of intense build-out for Bank Street Brewhouse, which debuted in March, so Friday coverage of the Thursday evening meeting was provided by the late Lloyd "Highwayman" Wimp.

Lloyd had considerable potential as a writer; he wasn't trained in any respect, but harbored excellent instincts when it came to a juicy story. Unlike so many purported reporters, there wasn't a question Lloyd wouldn't ask.

We miss him.

---

What The F@#* Opie? Ya Ain't Seen Nothun Yet!

16 January 2009

Here it is, the middle of the week, the predicted coldest night in recent memory, there’s nothing of consequence on TV, and y’all still elected to be couch potatoes when you could have attended one of the most entertaining New Albany Common Council meetings to date.

It started out harmless enough. Our resident mail carrier took to the podium to say he felt the Council had better things to do with its time than deal with a Resolution in support of HR676 (a US House bill concerning universal health care).

After all, the city of New Albany has no influence on the Beltway Boys so why waste the time.

At this point a non-agenda item was raised in the form of a council committee report from the housing/code enforcement threesome. (make that a twosome as CM Price abstained from officially signing the recommendation.)

Steve's reasoning was that he disagreed with a sentence that seems to hold rentals to a higher standard than us lowly homeowners as it pertained to enforcement.

As a side note, Pat Harrison & her entourage of landlords presented CM & Committee Chair John Gonder with a copy of said recommendation prior to the meeting. The mystery of that is according to Gonder himself, he had not presented said report to any Council Members prior to tonight’s meeting. Strange indeed!

Then in the Communications from City Officials slot an employee from the City Controllers office took a stand against A-09-01 which would give a raise in pay to two Non Bargaining Unit employees who work in the Utility Billing Department.

It seems they have inherited the billing duties from EMC as it pertains to Storm Water, Trash, & Sewer bills as those has now been brought back into the Cities venue.

She was followed by one of the two affected employees who pled their case for the increase after which the fun began in earnest.

Carl then stood in the absent Mayor’s stead and proceeded with a detailed explanation of England’s surgery, (good thing I didn’t eat before), recovery, therapy, and remorse for not being at tonight’s gathering.

He was going to elaborate even further but Council President Coffey took the floor and exclaimed that while the Council and the audience were concerned about the Mayor’s well being, it was not necessary to give a blow by blow report at each & every gathering.

He went on to request that if the Deputy Mayor had any further official city business to discuss to get on with it.

I went blank for a few seconds but as I recall Carl offered a report about the insurance monies received for the Tabernacle Building, the FEMA funds forthcoming from Ike, the city’s resolve to address code enforcement based in part on the committees recommendations, and his assurance that Mayor England would give his State of the City address at the next meeting.

With that we moved into “the meat of the meeting” per President Coffey.

Resolution (R-09-01) to support the aforementioned HR676 passed with a vote of 7 for & 1 abstention (CM Gahan).

Ordinance A-09-01 amending Salaries for Non Bargaining Unit employees garnered a 4 to 4 vote. At this point Pres. Dan conferred with Council Attorney Stan Robison (oh! Did I forget to mention we have a new attorney?) who ruled that a tie vote on first reading amounted to a failure to pass.

Next came Z-09-02 to amend the Zoning Classification in a portion of the West End of our fair city. Upon a recommendation from Zoning and Planning it passed with an 8-0 count on first reading.

There were two more ordinances on the agenda but one got tabled (again) and the other I blanked out on (again). Even more evidence that attending one of these events stone cold sober is hazardous to ones health!

Then came the first round of the Headliner of the evening ie; Non-Agenda Items! Our good friend and comrade-at arms Mark Cassidy took the podium to ask this council to consider the US Constitutionally mandated redistricting of New Albany’s voting districts.

If you’ll recall, the previous Council’s prime objection was that action had been initiated without having first requested that they (the Council) do their duty. Mr. Cassidy was merely attempting to abide by the Council’s wishes by bringing it forward again.

However President Coffey was going to have none of it. He cut Mark off in mid sentence explaining that in these dire times there were much more important issues facing New Albany.

He furthered that the previous Council had indeed passed a redistricting plan that met the State statute and that was the end of it.

Not one to be ignored, Mark respectfully asked if he could at least finish his remarks. Coffey nodded in the affirmative and Mr. Cassidy began again.

At this point the new Council Attorney began to dress down Mark about events concerning this subject that occurred back in 1999. Apparently Mr. Robison had been sitting in as a substitute for then Council Attorney Henderson on the evening that this subject was broached and afterwards had been berated in the media and elsewhere for his action/inactions during that event. So tonight opened up an old wound and he came out like a wounded pit bull.

To his credit he later in the evening apologized to Mark for his outburst and seemed genuinely remorseful for his actions.

President Coffey took over where Stan left off and began to look like the Dan we’ve all come to know over the years. Mark tried several times to finish his statement but in the end he was gaveled down and the meeting was adjourned.

We all took a deep breath of WHEW! Damned glad that’s over without bloodshed!

But is was not to be for Round Two was just over the horizon!

I hurriedly guided Mark out the door to the elevator and into the cold night air. We proceeded to Studio’s for our regularly scheduled Council Meeting Afterglow. We ordered a coupler of beers and were pleasantly surprised to see our very own Bluegill and his compatriot Roy stroll in.

We began to impart a report of the gathering to them and who walks in but Coffey, Gonder, Robison, & Carl Malysz!

Dan apparently hadn’t had enough and the discussion began anew with gusto!

It wasn’t long until Bluegill got involved and he & Coffey got nose to nose. The volume rose, the faces got red, threats got hurled and then slowly something close to a tone of reason began to return.

Almost all present exchanged their views on the subject and although no agreement was reached there was no broken glassware, no blood on the carpet, and no 911 calls.

Dan left, Stan again expressed his remorse to Mark, we ordered another round and collectively discussed the variety of still unresolved issues before us.

In the end it was a toss up somewhere between definite lines being drawn in the sand and a no harm/no foul street ball game.

Sure does make one wonder what the future holds though. So grab a season ticket and enjoy the festivities.

Hell they’re FREE!

---

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

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

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

The more things change, the more they stay the same: Having engineered the 2009 council presidency for Dan Coffey, Jeff Gahan joined Coffey in swapping city attorneys.

Relevant for 2017?

Coffey, undemocratic Democrats "win" as Lorch ousted from city council attorney position.

---

Ulrich out, Robison in as city council attorney?

15 January 2009

WTF?

I didn't attend tonight's meeting, but Lloyd just phoned, and evidently Jerry Ulrich has been displaced as city council attorney by Stan Robison.

I'll let the Highwayman provide the rest of the story in due time, but he also says that during non-agenda item public speaking time, Robison and council president Dan "Wizard of Westside" Coffey took ex-kingpin Jeff Gahan's place in publicly urinating on the Constitution v.v. a request to consider redistricting.

Whooo-eee. Stay tuned for a fuller report.

---

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

SHANE'S EXCELLENT NEW WORDS: Laggard, though not to omit straggler, loiterer, lingerer, dawdler, sluggard, snail, idler and loafer.

Welcome to another installment of SHANE'S EXCELLENT NEW WORDS, a regular Wednesday feature at NA Confidential.

But why all these newfangled words?

Why not the old, familiar, comforting words, like the ones you're sure to hear when asking the city's corporate attorney why the answers to my FOIA/public records request for Bicentennial commission finances, due to be handed over on July 8, still haven't arrived on October 12?

Bicentennial commission financial trail? What's two (yawn) weeks (shrug) after 463 days?

October 12 update: Make that 14 weeks since the FOIA record request's due date and  546 days since I asked Bullet Bob Caesar to tell us how many coffee table books were left unsold, and how much the city's 200-year "summer of love" fest actually cost us.

It's because a healthy vocabulary isn't about intimidation through erudition. Rather, it's about selecting the right word and using it correctly, whatever one's pay grade or station in life.

Even these very same iniquitous, paving-bond-slush-engorged municipal corporate attorneys who customarily are handsomely remunerated to suppress information can benefit from this enlightening expansion of personal horizons, and really, as we contemplate what they knew and when they knew it, all we have left is plenty of time -- and the opportunity to learn something, if we're so inclined.

Today's word is laggard, including some of my favorite synonyms in the English language.

laggard

ˈlaɡərd/

noun

1. a person who makes slow progress and falls behind others: "there was no time for laggards"

synonyms: straggler, loiterer, lingerer, dawdler, sluggard, snail, idler, loafer

adjective

1. slower than desired or expected: "a bell to summon laggard children to school"

Here's another example in a sentence, from August 26, 2007.

Redistricting: Grudgingly coming soon to a laggard city near you.

For more than a year, the single most hypocritical game in a city widely known for its jaw-dropping talent at self-deception has been the irony-free ability of its tub-thumping “law and order” advocates to be magically transformed into defenders of flagrant illegality when the topic turned to the city council’s abysmal failure to heed pertinent statutes and to redistrict.

In other words, the failure of the council to simply do its job.

The council later reneged on its agreement, and can you guess who led the way in thumbing his nose at the court ruling?

Jeff Gahan, that's who. Is it any wonder his corporate attorney won't honor a simple FOIA request?

Demographics 'n' stuff, part 1: Classes of Indiana city, and Indiana politician.

If our statewide Chamber of Commerce cadres are to be believed, and I generally counsel extreme caution when surveying their tilted pronouncements, the core motivation of Indiana's ongoing Regional Cities Initiative lottery derives from the one percent's concern with impending depopulation.

Ultimately, this notion probably is about as whacked-out as Nicolae Ceausescu's pet idea of banning contraception in Romania to increase births to populate forced collectivization in agro-industrial complexes (Amazonias?), but there it is: Indiana needs more people living here, and because as yet Republicans cannot control procreation, however hard they try, this means keeping existing Hoosiers at home, and luring unwitting outsiders to take up housekeeping inside our borders.

The fact that political luminaries such as our own Ron Grooms sees neither hypocrisy nor contradiction in simultaneously espousing corporate welfare to bribe potential residents even as he chases talented young people away via the idiocy of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is something for the ballot box to decide in 2018, unless the race devolves into Grooms versus Jeff Gahan, in which case we decamp for Bucharest -- and finally, freedom from mediocrity.

Meanwhile ...

I bring this up after researching some of the esoteric requirements of the Regional Development Authority, which now is moot since the Floyd County Council rightfully chucked it aside. By Indiana reckoning, New Albany is a second-class city:

The following is the list of incorporated cities in Indiana as of July 7, 2012. Except as noted, all cities are "third-class" cities with a seven-member city council and an elected clerk-treasurer. Second-class cities had a population of at least 35,000 and up to 600,000 at time of designation, and have a nine-member city council and an elected clerk. Indianapolis is the only "first-class" city in Indiana under state law (designed to protect its status as the only first class city), subjecting it to Unigov.

What's the ultimate difference?

Although class can be an important distinction for city leaders, “regular people” often don’t know the difference, said Jamie Palmer, a senior policy analyst for Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs.

“It’s really just local politicians’ preference,” concurred Ann Cottongim, deputy director of the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns.

In a third-class city, the political party duopolies lose two council seats, and the mayor is deprived of the power of appointing a controller. It's not altogether much of a difference, though perhaps outweighing the bizarre distinction that I'll always recall as the very ultimate in red herrings: All America City status, which people in 1968 actually thought mattered for something.

The overall trend in New Albany during my lifetime has been population decline, although from 2010 - 2013, we gained a few hundred residents and have around 36,803 people living here.

If New Albany dropped below the 35,000 threshold, would we be relegated?

I can't imagine a single sitting politician acquiescing in losing his seat, so I doubt it. There'd probably have to be a lawsuit -- and I'm old enough to remember what currently conjoined political chums Jeff Gahan and Dan Coffey did back in 2008 to thwart fairness in mandated redistricting.

I'd suggest that we'd be better off as a classless city, especially as it might pertain to political classes.

Gahan AWOL as city council discusses the school referendum, voting machines and precinct boundaries.

Pillsbury's on ice, so the mayor has been returned to his cryogenic storage tube.

As so often is the case, with nothing "official" on the agenda, last evening's council klatch was transformed into Potpourri for a few million, Alex.

Downtown elementary schools.

(What are things we close so other schools become crowded and require fresh bond issues to reconstruct?)

Voting machines.

(What are items the city must buy because Mark Seabrook prevents the county from doing so?)

Precinct boundaries.

(What are ever-shifting, amorphous lines kept vague on Mark Seabrook's orders?)

And so on, and so forth, and forever we drift toward Eastridgeocracy, or government by dump truck-wielding wealth extractors.

Read all about it, courtesy of Daniel Suddeath, who in mid-meeting tweeted this:

Three of four mayoral candidates at tonight's New Albany council meeting. We're just missing the incumbent.

That's what I'm saying.

A primary concern in New Albany: Voting issues, school referendum on council’s mind ahead of May election, by Daniel Suddeath (N and T)

NEW ALBANY — One item of business fed off the other Monday, as the New Albany City Council considered several topics related to the upcoming May 5 primary.

Redistricting plan rejected: "We have all been here before," whispers King Larry via hologram.

Gasoline top-offs come, bicentennials go, and councilman Zurschmiede always comes back to the mic to sing those most immortal of New Albanian legacy mantras: "What's going on under the ground, hmmm?"

Redistricting plan voted down by New Albany council, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune)

NEW ALBANY — Though the measure passed on initial readings, the New Albany City Council voted down a redistricting measure Monday on the final ballot.

The ordinance would have established new district parameters, however it would not have pitted any current council members against each other in the 2015 municipal election.

But those who opposed the plan said the ordinance split too many precincts in an effort to even up the population numbers and could confuse the voters who would be moved to a new district.

The proposal called for five precincts to be split.

Yet another opportunity for NA's city council to get redistricting right.

Perhaps KanyeZ filched the microfiche of the rejected 2008 plan?

Redistricting likely to soon see New Albany council vote; Public hearing slated for Sept. 20, by Daniel Suddeath (N and T)

NEW ALBANY — After months of committee meetings, the New Albany City Council has slated a public hearing in September over a new redistricting plan.

Required to redraw the voting maps following a U.S. Census, the council must approve a redistricting ordinance by the end of the year. The topic has caused a mix of emotions in recent years, as a lawsuit was filed by residents against a prior council to lawfully redistrict, and the mere mention of redrawing the boundaries has sparked arguments and accusations.

Much of the debate centered around a 2008 redistricting committee that included plaintiffs in the case against the council. In part, the lawsuit was dropped due to the formation of the committee, though its redistricting plan was ultimately rejected by the council.

Redistricting in 2009, 2012 and for as long as the Cappuccino is frothed.

It has been long established that to live in New Albany is to accept one fundamental axiom: The more things change, the more they stay the same, and so it is today that I provide you with more entertainment along these lines.

We begin with now, or more specifically, last week's council conclave.

Redistricting still a hot topic in New Albany; Work session renews gerrymandering accusations, by Daniel Suddeath (N and T)


 ... Mark Cassidy was one of the 2008 redistricting committee members, and attended Thursday’s work session. He took exception with Coffey’s accusation that the committee had a politically motivated agenda when it formed its plan.


Cassidy yelled “that’s not true” as Coffey alleged the committee had gerrymandered the districts, and it wasn’t the first time the two had exchanged words about the topic.


When Coffey was council president in 2009, he cut off Cassidy while he was speaking during the public comment portion of a meeting. Cassidy was asking if the council intended to form another redistricting committee when Coffey interrupted him.


During that 2009 meeting, Coffey said the council only agreed to form the redistricting committee to “try to appease the group” that had filed the lawsuit ...

The late, lamented Highwayman -- Lloyd Wimp -- was there on January 15, 2009, and he provided a report to NA Confidential for publication the following day.

What The F@#* Opie? Ya Ain't Seen Nothun Yet!


 ... Then came the first round of the Headliner of the evening ie; Non-Agenda Items! Our good friend and comrade-at arms Mark Cassidy took the podium to ask this council to consider the US Constitutionally mandated redistricting of New Albany’s voting districts.


If you’ll recall, the previous Council’s prime objection was that action had been initiated without having first requested that they (the Council) do their duty. Mr. Cassidy was merely attempting to abide by the Council’s wishes by bringing it forward again.


However President Coffey was going to have none of it. He cut Mark off in mid sentence explaining that in these dire times there were much more important issues facing New Albany ...

Back in 2009, I missed the council meeting and subsequent eruptions, which were explained in greater detail in a column (January 29, 2009) I wrote for the Tribune -- you remember, the weekly column that was taken away from me when I did my civic duty and ran for council in the hope of keeping the violent copperhead shake closer at hand, and foolishly trusted the newspaper to keep its word?

Hot toadstools and cold cappuccino


... It is incredible, shameful and indefensible. New Albany’s council president refused to permit a citizen to speak during the time allotted for it, and then both verbally and physically accosted another citizen in a public place. Is there any better example of the New Albany Syndrome than Dan Coffey’s skewed perspective of “leadership,” as manifested by these lamentable outbursts?

Here we are, in 2012, and with the redistricting issue again at the forefront (those pesky constitutional obligations, council folk), CM Coffey's shamelessly waving the very same bloody shirt as before. He always will, just the same way as a cat endlessly regurgitates hairballs. But remember: It could be a lot worse, like it was when the Gang of Four terrorized decency and syntax hereabouts ...

Messer is right: The new council must make redistricting a priority.

You could forgive Jack Messer for saying, “Eight (years) is enough,” but the former two-term city council person attended last Thursday evening’s 2012 council kickoff and sat through the entire meeting for his chance to offer a non-agenda item comment about the importance of timely redistricting.

Most readers already know that I was a plaintiff in the lawsuit mentioned below in Daniel Suddeath’s excerpted news account. Through no fault of Messer’s, two previous council configurations have botched this imperative. Here’s to the hope that in 2012, history won’t repeat itself.

 ... Former Councilman Jack Messer, who lost his seat after an unsuccessful run for mayor last year, addressed the body on a very familiar topic.

He reminded the council they must redistrict voting boundaries, which the body hasn’t done since the 2010 U.S. Census was released. Cities are constitutionally mandated to redistrict following a census, and the issue led to a lawsuit in New Albany in 2006 as plaintiffs were upset with how the council handled the process.

The plaintiffs eventually agreed to settle, though some were angered by the 2007 council ordinance that was eventually accepted as the redistricting guideline.

The boundaries were set in 2009, nearly a decade after the latest Census at the time which was calculated in 2000.

Speaking during the public comment portion of the meeting, Messer urged the council to make redistricting a priority. Messer was an at-large councilman when he was selected in 2008 to serve on a redistricting committee that included some of the lawsuit plaintiffs.

The redistricting plan that was hatched and approved by the committee was spurned by the council also in 2008.

“I’m just bringing it to your attention that this needs to be looked at and put in committee,” Messer told the council Thursday.

A Candidate’s Progress (8): My question for mayoral candidate Jeff Gahan.

We’ve all become accustomed to legislative scorecards compiled by various lobby groups. Not unexpectedly, these tend to rank the performance of elected officials according to criteria precisely targeted to the wants and needs of the particular interest group doing the scoring.

Here in New Albany, one female voter/candidate goes so far as to pretend she’s a male academic, posting the results of her convoluted canvassing of past city council votes on a blog that refers to the wonders of free speech without permitting any of it to occur.

Just as obviously, individual voters make similar mental calculations according to personal belief systems and preferred policy positions, although when it comes to local matters, perhaps they’re less systematic than the pros, owing to a relative closeness to the candidates, and the very real possibility of soft-pedaling dogma in consideration of proximity.

During the time I’ve been observing New Albany’s city council, it’s my guess that 3rd district council person Steve Price has been wrong three times as often as he’s been right. Conversely, John Gonder (at-large) has been right far more often than wrong. So has Jack Messer, but he’s not running for office again – at least yet – while both Price and Gonder are gunning for re-election.

One of their colleagues, Jeff Gahan, is giving up his 6th district council seat to seek the office of mayor.

(As an aside, I believe it is commendable, if atypical, for an office holder to do what Gahan is doing by risking his currently serviceable sinecure to make a move for something bigger. It takes confidence and chutzpah to put it all on the line).

Both Paul Etheridge and Irv Stumler, Gahan’s opponents in the Democratic mayoral primary, come to us from outside the realm of politics and government service, and consequently neither of them has a legislative voting record for us to examine.

Gahan does, and while I haven’t the time or the interest to quantify his votes in Erika-esque fashion, I trust my gut in saying this: If he has come down on the right side 7 times out of 10, which is likely, those other 3 times have been “fails” of truly epic dimension.

Topping my personal list of these dubious achievements is Gahan’s unexpectedly vehement and eager service in the cause of regressive anti-Constitutional ward heeling way back in 2008, when redistricting and the council’s inexplicable, ongoing refusal to perform its mandated redistricting duties were topics of the day.

The reason I’m bringing this up is not to embark upon an anti-Gahan tirade. Straight up: I like him, and his council tenure has been pretty much exemplary, even if he and I don’t agree on every issue (most prominently, this one).

Furthermore, in raising this issue, I emphatically am not conspiring “against” his mayoral aspirations. In fact, I’m struggling mightily with the comparative merits of the tripartite Democratic field.

So far, neither Etheridge nor Stumler has said anything to inspire me, but Gahan actually has, and the truth of the matter is that I’d like very much to support him in his quest to be mayor – except just now, I cannot.

Not until he addresses and clarifies his role in redistricting, circa 2008, when he blithely dismissed Constitutional imperatives by ensuring that the council would defeat the fairest and most equitable redistricting plan this city has ever seen, and by doing so, knowingly thwarting the intent of a settlement proposed by a Federal judge who knows more about the Constitution than Gahan or me.

Others may have different concerns, and they’re free to ask their own questions. This one’s mine.

Jeff, can you explain the importance of the Constitution and the context of rule of law in the redistricting case of 2008?

Kindly understand that I’m not looking for a contrived answer designed to appease me. It’s just that in private and public conversations at the time, Jeff’s comments with regard to the primacy of the Constitution and the implications of it for rule of law, as elected officials ostensibly are sworn to uphold, were sufficiently ambiguous to merit clarification, especially now that he seeks to occupy the highest elected office in the city.

We might yet agree to disagree on this issue, and if we do, I’d love to be able to cast my vote for Jeff and to encourage others to do the same. I very much want to be able to do this, because during our work together on the steering committee of NA First, I saw a side of the candidate that I had not seen previously. I look forward to his answer.

In a retrospective mode, following is a brief overview culled from a mere two days of NAC posts in 2008.

Wonderfully and delightfully us … and that’s why major surgery is required.

Last evening the city council convened to consider a redistricting ordinance. The ordinance as submitted to the council was derived from the work of a committee. The committee was established for one reason and one reason alone. A previous incarnation of the council had for many years refused to cooperate with mandates set down by the very same Constitution referenced previously, and it had failed in its duty to fairly realign voting districts.

Because the previous council failed so spectacularly to do its job, citizens (of whom I was one) asked a Federal Court to interpret the council’s inactivity. Presiding over that body was a judge, whose job it is to apply Constitutional principles to problems like these, and whose job it is not is to be familiar with irrelevancies ranging from the location of one councilman’s house, whether dogs bark louder before a rainstorm, or the way that one neighbor never really thought highly of the color used by another to paint his house, and always complains about it at the Elks club meetings.

The judge sagaciously considered the previous council’s attitude with regard to its mandate to redistrict, and found it sorely wanting. He examined the previous council’s last-second attempt to implement a redistricting plan contrived in a Geritol-induced haze by the wife of one of its now mercifully retired members, and found that plan sorely wanting, too, because it did not adhere to the principles of the Constitution.

The Constitution. What a concept ... just not here.

In effect, the judge in question laughed the previous council out of court, made the very strong suggestion that it keep the Constitution in mind, and directed it to try again. The committee was approved and was formed, with three at-large councilmen and three community members (only one of whom was involved in the original lawsuit), and the council agreed to consider the results ...

… That is, unless you’re one of the four city council members, including the body’s president, Jeff Gahan, voting against Constitutional principles last evening, and in favor of local self-determination even if it means soiling a parchment all were sworn to uphold.

As ever, the Uncouncilman is “entitled to his opinion” – just not to his facts.

NAC received this e-mail comment earlier today.

In fact, if there is a new lawsuit, I want in as a plaintiff, as I am now pissed and disgusted the way certain councilpersons treat others for attempting to help move this city forward. The committee saved the city tens of thousands of dollars and what they received in return was being accused of politics and, regardless of the fact that they pay property taxes on homes in the city of New Albany, they’re outsiders.

Mere facts without lame excuses and sentimental claptrap ... in New Albany? Are facts even legal?

Jeff Gahan, who was the previous council' s president for two years, now stridently agrees with Price that redistricting is a council mandate, just as it was before, and yet, as we've seen, and as a Federal judge quite forcefully agreed, neither Price nor Gahan ... nor any other sitting council person at the time... was so sufficiently enamored of their Constitutional obligation to undertake redistricting. As best it can be determined, none even mentioned the possibility.

In 2011, as it was in 2009: Redistricting matters.

Given the deflating and seemingly universal disappointment (pervasive and numbing apathy has a way of precluding words like "anger") that followed Irv Stumler's surreal coronation as heir apparent to the retiring Doug England in New Albany's mayoral sweepstakes, it is entirely possible to view the probable entry of city council member Jeff Gahan into the race as genuinely interesting, if only to provide something approximating choice to an unstimulating mix.

In looking back at past blog posts, I found this passage, which reminds me of an epochal event that CM Gahan will need to address if he decides to run. It's a little matter of the Constitution, redistricting, and who did what to maintain a cynical sham when there was the chance to repair it.

September 3 (2009) city council notes: “It shows what the council has been putting up with.”

In the absence of connectivity, here are city council meeting notes for Thursday, September 3.

As opposed to the city clerk's obligation to record minutes a certain way (see below), I have no statute or precedent to follow when making these observations (usually in italics and red text).

Accordingly, I'll begin with a reminder.

Our current council members were elected according to plainly illegal districts owing to the previous council's refusal to do its statutory duty and fairly redistrict. The previous council sat just as illegally as the current one sits now, owing to the refusal of the preceding council to do the very same thing.

Councilpersons like Jeff Gahan continue to believe that none of this matters, and I heard him say it aloud after the meeting last night.

I continue to believe that it does, and the Constitution should in fact matter to one elected to uphold it, and furthermore, I believe that citizens should not have to earnestly beg their representatives to perform custodial tasks that are part of their job description from the beginning.

When such omissions occur, and when representatives muddy the waters by yawning through continual and flagrant displays of illegality (and poor taste, which although indicative of the Open Air Museum is not illegal) from the person they have conspired to select as president of the council -- when council actions at each and every meeting are tainted by the president's biases -- we must likewise expect that all nine of our council members will become tainted by association, and if someone like CM Gahan happens to be a part of this group, he should expect to be asked periodically: Exactly how is any of this synonymous with leadership by any coherent definition of leadership?

And, if someone like CM Gahan is unable to answer this question of leadership in a satisfactory manner, according to accepted definitions of qualities that pertain to "leadership" and similar concepts ... well, then he shouldn't expect someone like me to gaze in his general direction and say, "job well done, sir."

Because: It isn't being done, and isn't being done well.

The rest of it I explained to him in person early this morning. But I thought this public reminder is appropriate. I can point to dozens of unelected community members who are proactively leading, not merely regressively reacting. Many of them reside in my district, where we have nothing approximating representation. I'm still looking for a council member who fits this description of leadership.

The lamp is held aloft, but it is illuminating dead air.

Wheee! Bike lanes, redistricting and commentary from the city council's A#1 barbecued bologna vendor.

Tribune reporter Daniel Suddeath returns from his holiday to the first of two big stories.

CHANGING LANES: Section of Spring Street now featuring bike paths, two lanes

Spring Street is a little bit safer for cyclists, as Mayor Doug England confirmed Wednesday bike lanes will be finished along the New Albany route this week ...

... The way it looks right now, the lane changes are confusing, City Council President Dan Coffey said. He feels the bike lanes were added to appease a certain segment of New Albany. “The mayor is going to do anything he can to help the progressives out because he figures they’re going to help get him re-elected,” Coffey said.

Suddeath then turns to story number two, an old saw back in the news:

2007 redistricting plan used for new city boundaries

A few precincts have been shuffled, but there’s still plenty of controversy surrounding a redistricting ordinance that’s being used to file New Albany’s voting boundaries.

Floyd County Clerk Linda Moeller announced the changes Wednesday, as six New Albany precincts have been moved as ordered in a December 2007 City Council ordinance. In a news release, Moeller stated the Floyd County Election Board had to request the changes through the Statewide Voter Registration System, or SVRS, in Indianapolis.

Unfortunately for Suddeath, he seems to have spent quite a lot of time on the phone with Coffey, who is capable of being just as, er, "creative" with facts when it comes to counting voters as he is when chasing bicyclists on his big blue tricycle.

“The council gave this group an opportunity, they actually drew their own map, but they had no support from the public and no support from the council,” Coffey said.

Seems to me that our Cappuccino is becoming unsettled. Wonder why?

NASH: Council needs to do its duty.

NASH: Council needs to do its duty

The New Albany City Council has accomplished many things in the last few years.

It was able to create a cabaret ordinance keeping the residents of New Albany safe from the Rustic Frog. It was able to pass a novelty lighter ordinance keeping the city safe from impulse purchases at convenience stores. The council also ruled against a zoning board recommendation in order to protect the residents of Lafayette Drive from Frostys and junior bacon cheeseburgers.

Having introduced himself last week, new Tribune columnist Matt Nash wastes no time in taking our City Council to task for their ongoing efforts to protect themselves at the expense of a properly performing republic. His exgesis on the effects of unfair voting districts is incisive, showing how real world harm is done by the Council's chicanery, with some peoples' votes counting much more than others.

A federal case, to be sure. Thanks, Matt.

What The F@#* Opie? Ya Ain't Seen Nothun Yet!

Here it is, the middle of the week, the predicted coldest night in recent memory, there’s nothing of consequence on TV, and y’all still elected to be couch potatoes when you could have attended one of the most entertaining New Albany Common Council meetings to date.

It started out harmless enough. Our resident mail carrier took to the podium to say he felt the Council had better things to do with its time than deal with a Resolution in support of HR676 (a US House bill concerning universal health care).

After all, the city of New Albany has no influence on the Beltway Boys so why waste the time.

At this point a non-agenda item was raised in the form of a council committee report from the housing/code enforcement threesome. (make that a twosome as CM Price abstained from officially signing the recommendation.)

Steve's reasoning was that he disagreed with a sentence that seems to hold rentals to a higher standard than us lowly homeowners as it pertained to enforcement.

As a side note, Pat Harrison & her entourage of landlords presented CM & Committee Chair John Gonder with a copy of said recommendation prior to the meeting. The mystery of that is according to Gonder himself, he had not presented said report to any Council Members prior to tonight’s meeting. Strange indeed!

Then in the Communications from City Officials slot an employee from the City Controllers office took a stand against A-09-01 which would give a raise in pay to two Non Bargaining Unit employees who work in the Utility Billing Department.

It seems they have inherited the billing duties from EMC as it pertains to Storm Water, Trash, & Sewer bills as those has now been brought back into the Cities venue.

She was followed by one of the two affected employees who pled their case for the increase after which the fun began in earnest.

Carl then stood in the absent Mayor’s stead and proceeded with a detailed explanation of England’s surgery, (good thing I didn’t eat before), recovery, therapy, and remorse for not being at tonight’s gathering.

He was going to elaborate even further but Council President Coffey took the floor and exclaimed that while the Council and the audience were concerned about the Mayor’s well being, it was not necessary to give a blow by blow report at each & every gathering.

He went on to request that if the Deputy Mayor had any further official city business to discuss to get on with it.

I went blank for a few seconds but as I recall Carl offered a report about the insurance monies received for the Tabernacle Building, the FEMA funds forthcoming from Ike, the city’s resolve to address code enforcement based in part on the committees recommendations, and his assurance that Mayor England would give his State of the City address at the next meeting.

With that we moved into “the meat of the meeting” per President Coffey.

Resolution (R-09-01) to support the aforementioned HR676 passed with a vote of 7 for & 1 abstention (CM Gahan).

Ordinance A-09-01 amending Salaries for Non Bargaining Unit employees garnered a 4 to 4 vote. At this point Pres. Dan conferred with Council Attorney Stan Robison (oh! Did I forget to mention we have a new attorney?) who ruled that a tie vote on first reading amounted to a failure to pass.

Next came Z-09-02 to amend the Zoning Classification in a portion of the West End of our fair city. Upon a recommendation from Zoning and Planning it passed with an 8-0 count on first reading.

There were two more ordinances on the agenda but one got tabled (again) and the other I blanked out on (again). Even more evidence that attending one of these events stone cold sober is hazardous to ones health!

Then came the first round of the Headliner of the evening ie; Non-Agenda Items! Our good friend and comrade-at arms Mark Cassidy took the podium to ask this council to consider the US Constitutionally mandated redistricting of New Albany’s voting districts.

If you’ll recall, the previous Council’s prime objection was that action had been initiated without having first requested that they (the Council) do their duty. Mr. Cassidy was merely attempting to abide by the Council’s wishes by bringing it forward again.

However President Coffey was going to have none of it. He cut Mark off in mid sentence explaining that in these dire times there were much more important issues facing New Albany.

He furthered that the previous Council had indeed passed a redistricting plan that met the State statute and that was the end of it.

Not one to be ignored, Mark respectfully asked if he could at least finish his remarks. Coffey nodded in the affirmative and Mr. Cassidy began again.

At this point the new Council Attorney began to dress down Mark about events concerning this subject that occurred back in 1999. Apparently Mr. Robison had been sitting in as a substitute for then Council Attorney Henderson on the evening that this subject was broached and afterwards had been berated in the media and elsewhere for his action/inactions during that event. So tonight opened up an old wound and he came out like a wounded pit bull.

To his credit he later in the evening apologized to Mark for his outburst and seemed genuinely remorseful for his actions.

President Coffey took over where Stan left off and began to look like the Dan we’ve all come to know over the years. Mark tried several times to finish his statement but in the end he was gaveled down and the meeting was adjourned.

We all took a deep breath of WHEW! Damned glad that’s over without bloodshed!

But is was not to be for Round Two was just over the horizon!

I hurriedly guided Mark out the door to the elevator and into the cold night air. We proceeded to Studio’s for our regularly scheduled Council Meeting Afterglow. We ordered a coupler of beers and were pleasantly surprised to see our very own Bluegill and his compatriot Roy stroll in.

We began to impart a report of the gathering to them and who walks in but Coffey, Gonder, Robison, & Carl Malysz!

Dan apparently hadn’t had enough and the discussion began anew with gusto!

It wasn’t long until Bluegill got involved and he & Coffey got nose to nose. The volume rose, the faces got red, threats got hurled and then slowly something close to a tone of reason began to return.

Almost all present exchanged their views on the subject and although no agreement was reached there was no broken glassware, no blood on the carpet, and no 911 calls.

Dan left, Stan again expressed his remorse to Mark, we ordered another round and collectively discussed the variety of still unresolved issues before us.

In the end it was a toss up somewhere between definite lines being drawn in the sand and a no harm/no foul street ball game.

Sure does make one wonder what the future holds though. So grab a season ticket and enjoy the festivities.

Hell they’re FREE!

Ulrich out, Robison in as city council attorney?

WTF?

I didn't attend tonight's meeting, but Lloyd just phoned, and evidently Jerry Ulrich has been displaced as city council attorney by Stan Robison.

I'll let the Highwayman provide the rest of the story in due time, but he also says that during non-agenda item public speaking time, Robison and council president Dan "Wizard of Westside" Coffey took ex-kingpin Jeff Gahan's place in publicly urinating on the Constitution v.v. a request to consider redistricting.

Whooo-eee. Stay tuned for a fuller report.

Our Gahanic Majesty's Bequest: How many days since this/any city council redistricted?

The answer, as of today, is 5,870 days (the most recent lawful ordinance was 12/17/92).

Sunday readers, I need a little help.

I'm working on a Tribune column about the city council's ongoing failure to redistrict (see Bluegill's thoughts below), and it would be helpful to have a definitive rendering of exactly how long it has been since any New Albany city council has complied with its own rulebook and carried out lawful redistricting hereabouts.

The number of days will become part of the column's title, and can be converted into a running daily digital count on the blog's front page. Think of it as the sum numerical total of accumulated unconstitutionality.

Bluegill brought all this back to my attention with this comment earlier today hre: Tribune's "2009 agenda for Floyd County."

Kudos to the Tribune for publishing a very sensible agenda.

All the more baffling, then, that the City Council seems unable to produce an agenda of its own.

I would note also that waiting for the 2010 census would delay fair voting even more than what might be apparent. Results of that census won't be available until 2011, within a year of a municipal election, barring the Council from acting until after yet another unconstitutional vote was complete in 2012.

And that's exactly what Gahan, Coffey, Price, Benedetti, and McLaughlin, based on their voting records, want.

Gahan to step aside as council president as Coffey buys a new bow tie.

On Monday evening, New Albany's city council will convene for its first meeting of 2009, and ...

Gahan won’t return as New Albany City Council president, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune).

After serving three years as New Albany City Council president, Jeff Gahan plans to step aside Monday to make way for new blood.

“You have to be a little more reserved in the meetings with your own personal opinions and agendas, so the meetings will be run in a way that the rest of the council members are given ample opportunity to express their concerns,” Gahan said.

The Green Mouse (and NAC's intrepid reporter, Gordy Gant) both say that there's only one council member interested in Gahan's seat: Dan "Wizard of Westside" Coffey, who ended 2008 with a sustained and uncharacteristic charm offensive.

Will he heed Gahan's alleged lead and be "reserved"?

How long will the self-restraint (if any) last when the first grandstanding opportunity approaches the plate, fat and hittable?

Is there a Bazooka Joe university diploma for tact somewhere, kept hidden away from public view?

Meanwhile, reporter Suddeath can't resist a gentle dig at the departing president's expense, but Gahan deftly sidesteps the prompt.

... The smoking ban — which was passed by the council and later vetoed by Mayor Doug England — was a huge topic in 2008, but Gahan said the council’s legacy should be remembered for other decisions that the public may have overlooked.

Indeed. One huge one that leaps to mind was Gahan's savage opposition to the fairest redistricting plan seen in this city in decades ... perhaps ever.

Funny, isn't it, that Gahan's aversion to the Constitution trumped his mandated reticence as president. Since Coffey, too, opposed redistricting (primarily because of "them people"), I suppose we'll not be seeing the council dot its duty this year, either.

Sad, but status quo in the open air museum.

That's a lot of non-redistricted daze, eh?

I need some help.

We need to run a digital counter on NAC that counts the days that have passed since the city council last legally redistricted. That'd be some time in 1992, which puts it somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,840 days, give or take a few unbalanced electoral months.

If we can get the count right, then we can take turns bringing an actual digital counter to meetings.

Can anyone come up with a closer count?