Why Aren't Local Governments Challenging The City Of Indianapolis For Stealing Their Revenues?

A front-page article in today's Metro/State section of the Star says the Mayor's High Performance Government Team has come up with a plan to prevent the library from closing branches because of a budget shortfall it blames on property tax caps. Cutting back hours of operation at the library branches anywhere from 1 hour to 15 hours a week will save $1.9 million to $2.4 million annually. Here's a clue for the library board, school districts and other taxing districts on how to deal with the loss of revenues from property tax caps. Stop letting the City of Indianapolis steal your property tax revenues.

Pat Andrews brings up an excellent point on her blog, Had Enough Indy. The City keeps handing out tax abatements that cost all taxing units millions of dollars in lost tax revenues each year. When those businesses fail to create the jobs they've promised, the City can claw back the benefits it gave to those businesses. Although the City represents only 20% of the property tax levy, it keeps 100% of the funds it claws back from businesses.

There's also the issue of the PILOT revenues the City will receive from Citizens Energy on the sewer utility if the plan to transfer ownership of the water and city utilities is approved. The City is collecting tens of millions of dollars in the form of payment in lieu of taxes from an entity that is otherwise exempt from paying taxes. Yet all of those PILOT revenues are being paid to the City as if the City is the only taxing unit that collects property taxes.

Here's some of what Andrews said about how clever the City has been getting as of late in stealing other taxing unit's revenues:

As property tax caps are now in full effect and a ballot question in November could make them constitutional in Indiana, legal loopholes are being mined by the City of Indianapolis to allow the City to take a tad more than they are due.


The one power that the City of Indianapolis has that no other taxing unit in Marion County has is the right to grant abatements. Which it seems to do with abandon lately. Just look at the Jeff Swiatek's article in yesterday's Star business section, where he reports an abatement for CSO Architects, Harlan Bakeries, Greatbatch Medical, and Sharp's Academy - all in one fell swoop . . .

The 25th floor, under Mayor Ballard, is very very clever when it comes to finding and mining legal loopholes. I don't want to discourage that sort of thing entirely, since the State wields a heavy hand when telling all cities and towns how to go about their business. Finding a good loophole from time to time could be beneficial.


But, in today's property tax climate, we should all be concerned that the tax revenues are meted out proportionately and therefore fairly.

The Ballard Administration found a loophole in the case of 450 E. Market Street (see "Ludicrous or Clever - You Decide" and "MDC Public Hearing On The TM Miller Enterprises Abatement" and "MDC to Hold Public Hearing on Abatement for 450 E. Market") and were set to abate about $6.7 million in property taxes, get paid that very same amount, and use the money to buy an overpriced garage. In short, the City was planning on taking the tax money that would have gone to the schools and library and township and health & hospitals and keep it for its own. On top of it all, it was going to waste that money on buying a garage that it didn't really need. This deal, even though it passed all MDC and Council votes, has not yet been inked down - and that is a very good thing.

The Ballard Administration found another loophole with the $5 million clawback of abated taxes in the case of Navistar. (See "Abatements - Scary Loopholes Need Closing") And they kept it all -- even though the property tax distribution formula would suggest they 'deserved' only about 20% of it. They kept all the money. Then, they wasted that money by sending it on to the Indianapolis Economic Development, Inc. and the Indianapolis Convention and Visitors Association; two not-for-profits living largely off government largess while paying handsome salaries for its operators.

Now the Ballard Administration has found an even bigger loophole whereby proper apportionment of property taxes is set aside to the benefit of the City over the rest of the taxing units. This one makes the $6.7 million and $5 million deals look like chump change. And this is the loophole on the carve out of the sewer utility from the property tax system.

Indiana Code 36-3-2-10, authorizes Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) from otherwise property tax free parcels in Indianapolis. Indiana Code 36-3-2-10(d)(4), lists "wastewater treatment facility", which at the time, was owned entirely by the City of Indianapolis.

The City-County Council recently increased the PILOT payments from the sewer utility and authorized the money be used to pay off 30 year bonds for infrastructure repairs. (See "City-County Council Should Vote Down Prop 132") The plan is to sell the sewer utility for another $260 million in cash to Citizens Energy. The sales agreement stipulates that Citizens Energy will not attempt to get the Legislature to change the sewer utility from a tax-free, PILOT paying, enterprise into a property tax paying enterprise. Now, this tax-free status is very different from the gas utility and the water utility - both of which currently pay and which will continue to pay property taxes after this sale goes through.

You might wonder why these other taxing entities aren't speaking out and demanding their fair share of these revenues. It's probably because the people who are supposed to be representing their interests--namely, the big law firms in town they pay to lobby on their behalf--have bigger fish to fry from the work they do on behalf of the City of Indianapolis.

It's also important to point out that the property tax reform law that enacted property tax caps also included a provision that required the state to pick up about a half billion dollars in debt the City owed in unfunded pension liabilities. Mayor Peterson planned to spend about $25 million a year from his 65% income tax increase for projected annual debt service on that unfunded liability. The City kept all but a few million dollars of the revenues generated from that tax increase each year, which is why the City's budget appears to be in better shape than many local governments' budgets right now. At the same time, all taxpayers started paying a 1 percentage point increase in their state sales taxes as a trade off for the property tax reforms that included tax caps. Now the next time you hear the Mayor or other city officials mention all of those tax revenues they're losing because of property tax caps, remind them not only of the tax increase it kept to pay for a long-term debt of the City's that no longer exists, but how the City is also stealing millions of dollars each year from other taxing districts and using it on questionable expenditures.

Borror: I Did It For My Family

State Rep. Randy Borror (R-Ft. Wayne) says he resigned his seat just two months after he was re-nominated for the seat he has held for a decade and became a lobbyist in order to devote more time to his family. "I made the decision after 10 years of service to the state of Indiana that it was time for me to concentrate on my family," he told the Star's Mary Beth Schneider. "If that's not good enough, if my service to the state hasn't been enough, then I suppose that people have their own opinion about that. I'm dedicating my next few years to my family."

It's funny how Borror wasn't quite so concerned about spending more time with his family last month when he unsuccessfully sought the GOP nomination to replace U.S. Rep. Mark Souder on the November ballot after Souder abruptly resigned amid disclosures of an extramarital affair with a staff member. That job would have required him to be separated much more from his family than being a part-time state legislator. I doubt that he will be the last legislator to cash in on his legislative service before Indiana's new revolving door law takes place in 2012 barring legislators from lobbying for at least one year after leaving the legislature. The Star has an editorial critical of Borror's decision. It is spot on in its criticism of the new law's delayed effective date. "But the two-year phase-in of the cooling-off requirement was a compromise that serves legislators' best interests, not the public's," the editorial opines.

Missouri's Democratic Secretary Of State Demands Republican Senate Candidate Prove U.S. Citizenship

Hector Maldonado is a 38-year-old combat Army veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and he was a first responder after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11. When he recently filed in the state of Missouri to run for an open U.S. Senate seat, he received a certified letter from Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, who is also running for that same seat, demanding that he produce proof of his U.S. citizenship or face removal from the ballot. The affirmation on his declaration of candidacy and voter registration information apparently just wouldn't cut it for this by the book secretary of state. Maldonado is a naturalized citizen who was actually born in Mexico. When Maldonado questioned Carnahan's office on whether it had requested similar proof from Sen. Barack Obama when he appeared on the presidential ballot in Missouri in 2008, he got no response. Maldonado is now considering a lawsuit against Carnahan's office because of the disparate treatment of his candidacy compared to Obama's, who recently came to Missouri to campaign for her senate candidacy.

Animal Care And Control Worsens Under New Ballard Appointee

Mayor Greg Ballard's administration showed little patience with former Indianapolis Animal & Control Director Doug Rae when it moved quickly to sack him last October after less than a year on the job and replaced him with Teri Kendrick. At the time, Rae's critics complained that response times took too long and there was too much overtime expense. Well, guess what? It's even worse now. WRTV reports:

New statistics detail lagging response times, a spike in overtime pay and a shortage of staff within Indianapolis Animal Care and Control.


While some emergencies are handled promptly, average response times topped seven hours in May, 6News' Joanna Massee reported . . .
 
The new statistics also show overtime costs exceeded $15,000 in May.


Public Safety Director Frank Straub said all of the issues can be linked to staffing problems.

"I think (response times are) getting longer for probably a couple reasons. One is staffing. We're down six people," he said. "I'm concerned about, clearly, the overtime, but I have to take responsibility for that because we're not moving the hiring process … because it's a bureaucracy and we're doing the best we can."

Former Acting Public Safety Director Mark Renner terminated former Animal Care and Control administrator Doug Rae in October 2009, citing poor response times.

Although the numbers have gotten worse, Straub defended Rae's replacement, current administrator Teri Kendrick.

"I look at the kennel improvements that have been made since Teri has been there. The kennel is cleaner, it runs more efficiently, the animals are treated better," Straub said.

Straub stressed that the ultimate responsibility for Animal Care and Control belongs to the community, not the city.

"This is a community responsibility," he said. "Responsible pet ownership is going to solve the problem."

Straub said he hopes a budget boost for the agency next year will help alleviate some of the current problems.

I'm curious as to how Straub would know that the agency is running better since Kendrick took over. Straub wasn't even around when Rae ran IACC. Where are all of those councilors who were screaming for Rae's head now that things have gotten worse? It's just another example of the incompetent leadership of this administration. If Ballard spent as much time tending to his mayoral responsibilities as he does trying to score free tickets, meals, gifts and out-of-state trips, he might actually make a competent, informed decision once in awhile instead of leaving it to the no-nothings who surround him calling all of the shots on a day-to-day basis. This guy can't be booted out of office soon enough.

Another Legislator Quitting Legislature To Become Lobbyist

The revolving door continues from the State House chambers to the State House hallways. Fort Wayne Observed is reporting on the soon-to-be-announced departure of State Rep. Randy Borror (R-Ft. Wayne) from the House to become a lobbyist. Borror unsuccessfully sought the nomination in the Third District to replace U.S. Rep. Mark Souder. He is currently a candidate for re-election. FWOB suggests Borror's new position will require him to resign his seat immediately, paving the way for yet another caucus election of a candidate to both fill his current House seat and replace him on the November ballot. Nikki Kelly of the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette says he has accepted a lobbying position with Bose Public Affairs Group. Kelly reports:

Veteran Rep. Randy Borror, R-Fort Wayne, is leaving the Indiana legislature effective today to run a new Fort Wayne office of a large state lobbying firm.


"This was a brutal decision for me," he said. "For 28 years I have been involved in politics in one way, shape or form. For the last 10 years I have dedicated myself to the state. The next 10 years and beyond I am dedicating to my family."

Borror, 52, has served in the Indiana House of Representatives since 2001, and in the 1980s worked with U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar and the National Republican Senatorial Committee in Washington. He also recently was one of 15 people seeking to replace former U.S. Rep. Mark Souder on the fall ballot.

After this year's legislative session and the recent caucus to replace Souder, Borror said he realized he has been missing important things in his 12-year-old daughter's life.

So when Bose Public Affairs Group LLC presented him an offer, he decided to change gears.

Borror will open a new Fort Wayne office, which will provide consulting services to clients on legislative and political strategies with a special focus on the executive branch and state agencies.

He plans to spend more time in Fort Wayne, but will still work some in Indianapolis.

This is just a continuation of the trend of legislators to use their legislative positions to springboard into higher paying jobs as lobbyists. I long ago figured out that the Indiana legislature is equally as corrupt as the Illinois legislature for whom I once worked. These guys here don't have a decent federal prosecutor breathing down their necks, which is why so many corrupt pols get prosecuted and sent to prison in Illinois. Instead, we get political hack U.S. Attorneys and a totally corrupt local prosecutor, Carl Brizzi. Kelly notes that a new ethics law signed into law this year bars legislators from lobbiing their colleagues for one year after leaving the legislature. Borror told Kelly he will wait at least a year before lobbying the legislature, even though the law has not yet taken effect. He will, however, lobby the Daniels administration with whom he has worked very closely as a legislator.

And Then There Were Nine

That long list of 34 candidates for the Supreme Court vacancy has been narrowed to 9 semi-finalists by the Judicial Nominating Commission. They are the following:

Ellen Boshkoff, a partner at Baker & Daniels
Judge Steve David of Boone County
Kipley Drew, an associate general counsel at IU
Judge Cynthia Emkes of Johnson County
Thomas Fisher, Solicitor General for the Attorney General's office
Judge Robyn Moberly of Marion County
Karl Mulvaney, a partner at Bingham McHale
Judge Steven Nation of Hamilton County
Sen. Brent Steele of Lawrence County

The Indiana Law Blog makes the following observations about the group of semi-finalist candidates:

But, although a majority of the applicants were women (19), a slight majority—five—of the finalists are men (David, Fisher, Mulvaney, Nation, and Steele) and only four women (Boshkoff, Drew, Emkes, and Moberly) remain.


Four finalists are trial judges: David, Nation, Emkes, and Moberly. One is a state senator (Steele), and the other four are either big firm lawyers (Boshkoff and Mulvaney), in-house university counsel (Drew), or a governmental lawyer (Fisher).

Seven are from Indianapolis or a donut county, while only two come from other parts of the state: Drew is from Bloomington and Steele is from Bedford.

The ages range from 41 (Fisher) to 62 (Steele) with Drew (48), Boshkoff (49), Emkes (51), David (53), Moberly (56), Mulvaney (60), and Nation (60) rounding out the middle.

I think most objective observers would agree that the Commission tapped into the best talent it had among the 34 candidates. I'm surprised Judge Cynthia Ayers didn't make the cut simply because she was the only African-American candidate among the 34 up for consideration. There has been a strong presumption that Gov. Daniels wants to appoint a female candidate to the bench because there are none on the court currently. The only person Daniels appointed to the Court of Appeals that applied for the position, Judge Elaine Brown, has been eliminated. It turns out that the support she had from her fellow appellate court judges meant little to the Commission members. I was a bit surprised to see Sen. Steele make the cut. It is worth noting that the youngest candidate to make the cut, Fisher, at 41, is still older than Chief Justice Shepard was when he was appointed to the court while in his late thirties with virtually no experience other than a short tenure as a local judge in Vanderburgh County. His family was good friends with Gov. Robert Orr, who made the appointment. That move set off one of the ugliest episodes in the history of the Indiana Supreme Court. You can read more about that here if you're interested.

The Commission will now conduct a second round of interviews and recommend three finalists to the governor by the end of the month.

Obama's Challenge To Arizona Law No Slam Dunk

To read mainstream new media reports on Arizona's new law designed to crack down on illegal aliens, you would think it is without question unconstitutional. Those reports are based on the U.S. Constitution's grant of power to Congress to enact an immigration and naturalization law. The Obama administration maintains that the federal law provides no room for the states to concurrently exercise power to aid the federal government in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.  “In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the Justice Department argues in its complaint seeking to strike down Arizona's law. "This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress," the government continues. "The nation’s immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests.” Judicial review of the case will be expedited because the government is seeking to enjoin Arizona from enforcing the law. It must convince the court, however, that it is likely to prevail on the merits of the underlying case before the court will grant its request for an injunction.

Respected constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley says the government's case is not going to be as easy as some might think to prove. Because the government is not waiting for an "as applied" challenge to a specific enforcement of the state law against an individual, Turley assumes the government's challenge will not be based on express federal preemption; rather, he assumes the government is basing its claim on implied preemption. He notes that he finds nothing in the legislative history of federal immigration laws that indicate an intent to preempt concurrent jurisdiction by the state's in enforcement matters. Thus, the government is relying on the Supremacy Clause found in Article VI to make its case. The federal courts do no assume preemption is intended he notes. The claim must be "based on an inherent conflict between federal and state law."

You may be surprised to learn that our Supreme Court has already unanimously approved of the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by the states more than three decades ago. Explaining that decision, Turley writes:

In De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976), the Court ruled unanimously that California could exercise such concurrent jurisdiction. At issue was section 2805(a), stating that “no employer shall knowingly employ an alien who is not entitled to lawful residence in the United States if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful resident workers.” In a decision written by liberal icon William Brennan, the Court rejected preemption under the Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, of the U.S. Constitution, by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., the comprehensive federal statutory scheme for regulation of immigration and naturalization. This was obviously, however, before the current federal scheme was put into place.

The federal laws in force today are actually tougher than the immigration enforcement laws that were in effect at the time De Canas was decided. It's just that the federal government has been extremely lax in enforcing those laws. If the truth be told, the Obama administration has actually been conducting more enforcement actions than the prior Bush administration. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona, believes Arizona's law "will detract from and siphon resources that we need to focus on those in the country illegally who are committing the most serious crimes.” Turley believes that argument is a weak one. "It will be hard to argue that arresting federal violators interferes with federal enforcement unless the policy is non-enforcement," he says.

Turley's reading of the Arizona law is not one that represents an alternative enforcement scheme as opposed to a concurrent enforcement scheme. Again, Turley cites yet another Supreme Court decision speaking favorably of concurrent state enforcement of our immigration laws.

“Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State’s economy generally, or the State’s ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns.”  lyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 228 (1982).

The Arizona law allows law enforcement officers to detain persons based on a "reasonable suspicion" standard and turn them over to federal immigration enforcement officers if it turns out they are present in the U.S. illegally. He sees that as the greatest weakness in the law for a constitutional challenge. "On its face, it is hard to see how that standard could be applied constitutionally except when officers determine status at the time of another criminal violation are present in the U.S. illegally," he writes. But because the case filed by the government does not challenge an actual case involving enforcement, that argument will be more difficult to prove he notes. Courts should refrain from issuing advisory opinions. Instead, they limit their review to actual "cases and controversies" pursuant to Article III.

The Justice Department's complaint readily notes the government's deliberate policy of non-enforcement.  "Arizona’s adoption of a maximal 'attrition through enforcement' policy disrupts the national enforcement regime set forth in the INA and reflected in federal immigration enforcement policy and practice, including the federal government’s prioritization of enforcement against dangerous aliens," the complaint reads. Turley notes though that Arizona is not making any determination on whether to deport an illegal alien. It is simply handing over illegal aliens to the federal government for further action.

One final comment on this matter. I note another local attorney blogger is suggesting Arizona's law requires everyone in that state to carry proof of U.S. citizenship. That is simply patently false. Typically, a person in the country lawfully will have a current valid driver's license. Non-immigrants on employment-based visas or asylees will possess an employment authorization card indicating a lawful presence in the U.S. Visitors will have a visa in their passport. Permanent residents will carry green cards. The Arizona law allows law enforcement to detain persons if they have a reasonable suspicion the persons are in the country illegally. Such persons would presumably lack any of these types of evidence of lawful presence in the country. Often, local law enforcement agencies in Indiana today, while detaining such persons arrested and jailed for other criminal offenses ,will confer with ICE agents to determine their status. If ICE indicates an interest in deporting the person, local law enforcement holds them until ICE agents pick them up and take them to Chicago for deportation or removal proceedings. Interestingly, a number of more liberal cities in America have deemed themselves by local law to be "sanctuary cities" and refuse to cooperate in turning over illegal aliens to federal agents. Isn't that an exercise of immigration authority in direct conflict with federal immigration laws? I haven't seen the Obama administration take those cities to court to strike down their local laws.

I don't like to see states have to take matters into their own hands; however, in a time when state and local budgets are being slashed because of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, it's understandable that states are concerned about a growing population of illegal immigrants who are straining social service budgets, school budgets and criminal justice budgets. In Arizona, the state has had to contend with a disproportionate number of illegal immigrants committing violent crimes. Phoenix, for example, has become the kidnapping capital of the U.S. Many of these kidnappers are illegal immigrants taking persons hostage until ransoms are paid, a practice that is common in Mexico. Public opinion polls indicate that an overwhelming percentage of Americans favors crackdowns on illegal immigrants. My own immigration clients often complain about the unfairness to persons who immigrate to this country lawfully when so many simply walk across the border and do as they please once they arrive here. Sen. Mike Delph has already indicated he plans to push an Arizona-like law for Indiana during the 2011 legislative session. Indiana may want to wait and see how the Arizona law plays out in the courts, though, before it gets too far out front.

Brad Ellsworth's Bull On Bull

U.S. Rep. Brad Ellworth (D-IN) has raised more than $4 million in his previous runs for Congress since 2006 and the majority of those funds have come from out-of-state special interest groups. Yet his first TV spot in this year's senate race gives you the impression he's just some small town sheriff and an outsider who has never served a day in Congress. "One thing that 25 years as sheriff teaches you is zero tolerance for bull," Ellsworth says in his first 30-second spot dressed in blue jeans speaking from what appears to be an abandoned factory as a backdrop. "The special interests and lobbyists already have enough senators on their side," he concludes. Sorry, Brad. That dog won't hunt. In case you're wondering, his biggest campaign contributor in the current campaign cycle is Barnes & Thornburg, which has a DC office that lobbies Congress. And for the record, Ellsworth never served as a sheriff for 25 years as he suggests in his ad. The Indiana Constitution limits sheriffs to two consecutive terms. He served as Vanderburgh Co. Sheriff for two terms, or eight years. Is it possible for a candidate to run an ad that resembles anything close to the truth any more? 

Supreme Court Candidates In The Hot Seat

The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission began the process of conducting first-round interviews of 34 attorneys who have applied for the Supreme Court vacancy to be created by the retirement of Justice Ted Boehm. IU Indy Law Professor Joel Schumm on behalf of the The Indiana Law Blog covered each of the interviews and offered some interesting observations about some of the candidates. I've picked out a few to share with you below, some of which are quite humorous. You can view all of them by clicking here. The Indiana Law Blog also has links to the applications submitted by each of the applicants. Peruse them for your enjoyment. Some of them are quite interesting. The Commission will continue interviewing the remainder of the candidates tomorrow.

• Ellen Boshkoff, a partner with Baker & Daniels, told the commission she tries a lot of cases. “I don’t know if it’s because I’m stubborn.”
• "Judge [Elaine] Brown was the only candidate who seemed to have prepared an opening speech and occasionally looked down at notes. She thanked the commission for allowing her to deliver 'that monologue,' which lasted more than ten minutes."
• Monica Foster, an attorney in private practice said, "The justices’ job is 'the coolest job' a person could have. She described herself as 'fun to work with' and has a good reputation of working with others."
• Sen. Brent Steele, the only politician who applied for the position, explaining why he favors merit selection over electing judges: "[R]aising money is the hardest thing he must do as a legislator. People give money because they think legislators will vote a certain way. If the legislator does not vote that way, the money will dry up. If Indiana elected judges statewide, they would be required to raise a lot of money. Judges should be free of that requirement and the concerns about fairness for those who have contributed money."
• Kipley Drew, in-house counsel for IU, said, "She appreciates that the Court, unlike SCOTUS, is not a 'political court.'" "Based on her clerking experience she understands and appreciates the importance of collegiality."
• "Mr. [Geoffrey] Slaughter received a round of laughter when responding he should withhold judgment until he sees the results of this process." He is a partner at the Taft law firm.
• "Of the 19 candidates interviewed today, Mr. [Donald] Tribbett seemed to have the biggest problem in this department [personality and demeanor]" "In response to the first question from the Chief Justice about his reasons for applying, Tribbett quipped, 'It’s not the money.'" "He noted that he could not have applied ten years ago because of financial commitments but will be making his last tuition payment in the next year." "But it got worse." "He admitted part of the reason for applying was an 'ego thing' and proceeded to list his many accomplishments in a monologue that used well over half of his interview time". "In stark contrast to the modesty of applicants throughout the day, at one point Mr. Tribbett literally patted himself on the back when telling the commission how he had negotiated a land sale for five times what the sellers had thought it was worth."
• "Judge [Robert] Spahr’s interview was easily the most awkward of the day." "Although the commission members were very gracious in their questioning, the thought of Judge Spahr asking questions during oral argument or giving speeches as a representative of the Court would likely be a cause for concern." "Throughout the interview he would pose questions to the members." “Do you have any other questions?” “Have you ever written a book?” “Have you ever got a call at 1:00 in the morning?” He told the Commission that trial courts are often "confused" by appellate decisions on a question about the state of the judiciary.