The City-County Council has now agreed to authorize the borrowing of $12 million to pay off the millions in bills illegally encumbered by Mayor Ballard and since there are no appropriated funds left in this year's budget to raid to pay the bills. It's just another example of how the rule of law means nothing and how our City-County Council has completely abrogated its role as the legislative branch of our local government. Recipients of these illegal bills include:
- $4.7 million to the architectural and design firm of Hellmuth, Obata & Kassebaum of St. Louis;
- $3 million to Austin, Texas-based KPMG Corporate Finance, which oversaw the financial transaction between the city and the developer; and
- $3 million to the Indianapolis law firm of Bingham Greenbaum Doll
The City also still owes Mayor-elect Joe Hogsett's law firm, Bose McKinney & Evans for $300,000 of the $750,000 it agreed to pay his law firm to convince the City-County Council to approve the criminal justice center deal. Despite his obvious conflict of interest, Hogsett publicly spoke out against the proposal during this year's election and urged City-County Council members to reject the deal. At least his law firm had a taxpayer gift to cover the big six-figure salary he was paid to campaign full-time for mayor while not having billable hour requirements typically expected of partners at big law firms, or to cover the more than $300,000 in campaign contributions the firm made to his campaign, however you choose to look at it.
Tell me again exactly why we have- or why we need- a City County Council....
ReplyDeleteHey, I also didn't do anything for a justice center that isn't getting built. Where's my million dollars?
ReplyDeleteI guess this why I did not all that excited about this election. A lot has been written and said about which R or D won a certain Council Seat or the Mayor's Chair.
ReplyDeleteThey are all the same under their thin veneer of Party Logos.
Stiff them. Let them sue. Ultra Vires squared.
ReplyDeleteIsn't John Gregg a BGD attorney?
ReplyDeleteSo....
ReplyDeletewhy can't that $15 million being gifted to the schlock apartment developer be redirected to pay the $11.5 million debt "we" incurred for the justice center?
Flogger is right. They are all the same... from Scales to Adamson to Miller to Osili to Lewis to Robinson etc. Not a penny's worth of real difference among any of them.
ReplyDeleteAbolish The Rubber Stamp Indianapolis City County Council!
The City-County Council should NOT authorize any appropriation of taxpayer dollars to fund VOID contracts executed by Mayor Ballard. A 2013 not-for-publication Memorandum Decision by the Court of Appeals of Indiana [Froeschke v. Vincennes] cites relevant case law:
ReplyDeletePursuant to Indiana Code section 36-4-8-2, “[m]oney may be paid out of the city treasury ONLY on warrant of the city fiscal officer.” Ind. Code § 36-4-8-2 (emphasis added). The city fiscal officer may only draw a warrant against a city fund if an appropriation has been made for that purpose, the warrant is for a salary fixed by statute or ordinance, the warrant is for a claim allowed by the city legislative body at a meeting, he is ordered to issue a warrant by the city legislative body at a meeting, the warrant is for payment of a judgment that the city must pay, or the warrant is for interest due on city bonds. Ind. Code § 36-4-8-2. Any attempt to bind the City to a contract for which there was no appropriation is void. Ind. Code § 36-4-8-12(b). A contract to pay money, made by city officials without prior appropriation, is invalid. Hamer v. City of Huntington, 215 Ind. 594, 600, 21 N.E.2d 407, 410 (1939).
All contracts made in violation of the statute prohibiting anybody from binding a city to any agreement when no appropriation has been made are invalid, and a subsequent appropriation will not validate the same. Miller v. City of Evansville, 244 Ind. 1, 5, 189 N.E.2d 823, 825 (1963)
Miller cites "The City of Indianapolis v. Wann, Receiver (1896), 144 Ind. 175, 185, 42 N.E. 901, 904" which case summary states: "A contract for street lights for five years, at a certain price per light per year, payable monthly, made by the executive department of public works, when no appropriation for the purpose had been made except for a month or two in advance, is void, where the statute provides that no executive department shall bind the city by a contract, agreement, or in any way to any extent beyond the amount of money at the time already appropriated by ordinance for the purpose, and that all contracts and agreements, expressed or implied, and all obligations of any and every sort beyond such existing appropriations, are absolutely void. ... Subsequent appropriations for installments coming due on a contract made by city authorities in violation of a statute prohibiting contracts, for which appropriations had not already been made, cannot operate as a ratification of the contract so as to make it binding."
"All persons contracting with a municipal corporation must, at their peril, inquire into the power of the corporation and of its officers to make the contract." Wann at pg 188.
So... Does everyone just keep talking about how illegal it is or does some attorney file suit to stop the payouts?
ReplyDeleteHow do I get in on multimillion dollar payouts for work not done?
ReplyDelete