The Indiana Recount Commission met in a rare Sunday afternoon meeting to consider a petition filed on behalf of Democratic Secretary of State candidate Vop Osili by the Indiana Democratic Party against the Republican winner of the race, Charlie White. Karen Celestino-Horseman and Bill Groth, attorneys for the Democratic Party contend White should be disqualified from taking office because he failed to be legally registered to vote in the precinct where he actually lived when he became a candidate for that office and through the date of his Certification for Nomination for the election in November. The Democratic Party's petition for an election contest urges the Commission to disqualify White and certify Osili the winner as the candidate receiving the second largest number of votes in the race.
David Brooks, an attorney representing White, moved to dismiss the Democratic Party's petition, which was not filed until after White's election, because he says the Commission lacks jurisdiction to decide the issue once White ceased to be a candidate for that office. Democratic attorneys countered that Brooks' motion was defective and must fail because he failed to cite a specific deficiency as set forth in the Indiana Election Code for dismissing a petition for an election contest. Brooks further argued Indiana law only required White to be a registered voter in order to seek the secretary of state's office. He believes the qualification statute in question does not require White as a candidate to be legally registered to vote in the precinct where he resides; only that he be a registered voter in the state of Indiana.
As a matter of law, Brooks believes the Commission is required to dismiss the Democratic Party's petition. Brooks relied on the recent Indiana Supreme Court decision in Burke v. Bennett in which it was held the disqualification statute for candidates subject to the Little Hatch Act does not apply to post-election challenges to prevent the winning candidate from assuming office. Similarly, Brooks argues the post-election challenge to White on the basis he was not legally eligible to vote at the address he falsely claimed on his Certificate of Nomination as his primary residence cannot be invoked to prevent him from assuming office.
Outgoing Secretary of State Todd Rokita, who was successfully elected to retiring U.S. Rep. Steve Buyer's congressional seat, chaired today's Commission hearing despite requests by the Democrats' attorneys he recuse himself. Rokita's office investigated allegations White committed voter fraud by claiming his wife's residence as his primary residence so he could continue to represent a town council district to which he had been elected before he and his wife divorced. The residence White purchased in February is outside his district, and he claimed the residence of his ex-wife as his primary residence when he voted in May, was nominated by the Republican Party for Secretary of State in June, and certified as a candidate for the office in July. Democrats first raised the issue of voter fraud in September, at which point White promptly resigned his seat on the Fishers town council; however, they raised the issue after it was too late to challenge White's nomination for the November election ballot. Rokita forwarded a report detailing his office's findings in the matter to a special prosecutor appointed to determine whether White had committed voter fraud shortly before the November election, but he refused to release his findings to the public. Rokita maintains the document is shielded from public release as an investigative report prepared in an ongoing investigation. If an election contest is allowed to proceed, the document would be one of the first items sought in discovery by the petitioners.
Rokita denied the Democratic attorneys' claim he could not be impartial in the matter because he had already concluded whether White committed voter fraud. Rokita denied he has made any such conclusions, although it was clear from today's deliberations he believes their petition should be dismissed. The Commission voted along party lines to give Brooks until noon tomorrow to file an amended petition to dismiss the Democrats' petition for an election contest to comply with the statutory requirement to remedy his defective motion to dismiss. Although the Commission approved a schedule for conducting discovery in the event the contest is allowed to proceed, it was apparent from today's deliberations both Rokita and the other Republican Commission member, Gordon Durnil, intend to vote to dismiss once Brooks files his amended petition. The lone Democratic member, former state legislator Robert Kuzman, who is now a lobbyist for Ice Miller, opposed Brooks' motion to dismiss and believes the contest should proceed in accordance with law. White was noticeably absent from today's hearing. He has remained virtually invisible since the vote fraud allegations against him first arose in September.
At the end of the day, I think Brooks has the stronger argument that Democrats should have timely contested White's qualification to run for secretary of state until waiting after he won the election in November to file their petition, although I think it appears apparent to any objective observer that White committed voter fraud in order that he could continue to represent a council district in which he didn't live. If the special prosecutor concludes he committed voter fraud and brings charges against him, he will no doubt be pressured to resign. If he refuses to resign and is ultimately found guilty of violating the law, he could be removed from office.
I publicly challenged my own councilor's residency during the 2007 municipal election and he promptly resigned his seat on the council with the prodding of party leaders. Particularly troubling in that case was the fact that Marion Co. Clerk Beth White, who is an attorney, certified Patrice Abduallah for the May primary election even after he filed a declaration of candidacy listing a residence outside his district. White claimed she had no legal obligation to challenge Abduallah's candidacy. She simply advised him of the problem and left it to him to correct it. Upon further investigation, it appeared to me Abduallah had lived outside the district the entire time he served as my councilor. The home he claimed as a primary residence was actually an abandoned home in bad disrepair that had been cited by the city for numerous code violations. No legal action was taken against Abduallah despite the obvious voter fraud he had committed.
Sunday, December 05, 2010
The Ballard Lies Just Keep Piling Up
When the Ballard administration first touted its plan to transfer control of the city's water and sewer utilities to Citizens Energy and charge the publicly-owned utility a several hundred million dollar fee, in addition to assuming nearly $1.5 billion in debt, critics like myself questioned whether the claimed annual savings from Citizens' operation could be achieved as long as the privatization agreements for the utilities remained in effect with Veolia (water) and United Water (sewers). We were told the agreements were ironclad and could not be broken without paying a huge penalty. Months after the deal was consummated we learned the City had secretly negotiated to pay a $29 million break-up fee to Veolia out of the proceeds from the transaction. No problem the Ballard administration insisted because the break-up fee was being paid out of $40 million in escrowed funds and would not effect utility rates, hinting that the Ballard administration knew at the time of the deal's approval a break-up fee would be paid to Veolia, even though a pending class action lawsuit suggests the city had valid grounds for cancelling the agreement for cause.
A second major argument forwarded by the Ballard administration for approving the Citizens Energy agreement was the availability of Build America bonds that could be tapped by Citizens Energy to finance the deal. We were told it was urgent the deal be approved immediately to ensure the availability of the bonds, which we were told would save ratepayers about $100 million over the long haul as opposed to the cost of issuing traditional tax-exempt bonds. This never seemed to make sense to me because in 2009 Matt Gutwein insisted the Health & Hospital Corporation had no choice but to conduct a costly special election referendum in November of last year to seek approval of the construction of a $700 million county hospital in order to qualify for Build America bonds. Gutwein said if HHC had waited until this year's May primary to conduct the referendum, it would not have been able to tap Build America bonds. Recalling Gutwein's argument, I asked how the Citizens Energy deal could be approved in late spring of this year, still need IURC approval and yet manage to qualify for the Build America bonds. No problem the Ballard administration insisted. Time still remained to get the deal done and qualify for the bonds.
Nearly six months later we learn from a story in the latest edition of the IBJ, those Build America bonds will not be available because the IURC had not acted on the deal before the end of the year when the bonds program is set to expire. The IBJ's Chris O'Malley reports on this latest change:
And, of course, there has been the ensuing scandal at the IURC involving the control Duke Energy obviously exercised over key decisionmakers. A third argument advanced by the Ballard administration for the deal was that ratepayers would be protected from unfair rate increases and other dealings with Citizens Energy because the IURC approval process would protect them from overreaching by Citizens Energy. It’s hardly been a secret that the IURC for decades has been a revolving door of employment to and from utilities," the IBJ notes. "With everything happening at the IURC, that certainly gives me pause,” Sanders said of the upcoming loss of city oversight.
I don't think the idea of the IURC rejecting the deal or requiring substantial changes in the agreement is so far fetched, particularly in light of the black eye the IURC has received from the scandal involving the hiring of the IURC's general counsel by Duke Energy while he participated in administration decisions directly impacting the utility. There is a lot of pressure on the IURC to prove it is an independent, objective regulatory agency to reassure a skeptical public it is charged with protecting. I'm also wondering if the Star's Dennis Ryerson and other proponents of the Citizens Energy deal who were so critical of those of us who opposed the deal will give us our due for warning about all of these things that have proven the validity of our arguments against the deal. None of this would have mattered if the Ballard administration had simply been up front about the deal and terminated the Veolia operating agreement before it sought approval of the deal in light of the IURC's blistering criticism of an operating agreement it deemed too one-sided in favor of Veolia. And the same would have been true if the Ballard administration had simply agreed to a straight up transfer without requiring a several hundred million dollar payment from Citizens in order to finance public infrastructure improvements entirely unrelated to the utilities' operation, which is effectively a new hidden tax in the form of higher utility rates.
A second major argument forwarded by the Ballard administration for approving the Citizens Energy agreement was the availability of Build America bonds that could be tapped by Citizens Energy to finance the deal. We were told it was urgent the deal be approved immediately to ensure the availability of the bonds, which we were told would save ratepayers about $100 million over the long haul as opposed to the cost of issuing traditional tax-exempt bonds. This never seemed to make sense to me because in 2009 Matt Gutwein insisted the Health & Hospital Corporation had no choice but to conduct a costly special election referendum in November of last year to seek approval of the construction of a $700 million county hospital in order to qualify for Build America bonds. Gutwein said if HHC had waited until this year's May primary to conduct the referendum, it would not have been able to tap Build America bonds. Recalling Gutwein's argument, I asked how the Citizens Energy deal could be approved in late spring of this year, still need IURC approval and yet manage to qualify for the Build America bonds. No problem the Ballard administration insisted. Time still remained to get the deal done and qualify for the bonds.
Nearly six months later we learn from a story in the latest edition of the IBJ, those Build America bonds will not be available because the IURC had not acted on the deal before the end of the year when the bonds program is set to expire. The IBJ's Chris O'Malley reports on this latest change:
Among the pitches Citizens Energy Group made to buy the city’s water and sewer utilities was that it, unlike for-profit operators, could access low-cost borrowing under the federal Build America Bond program.
It touted that the stimulus financing tool could be 1.5 percent cheaper than traditional tax-exempt rates. That was if Citizens could get the $1.9 billion deal approved first by the City-County Council and then by the Indiana Regulatory Commission before Dec. 31, when the bond program is to expire.
“Not utilizing Build America Bonds,” Citizens warned this summer, “would needlessly add more than $3 million per year to the cost of the utility transfer or about $100 million over the 30-year life of the bond issue.”
Though the council approved the deal this summer, Citizens concedes the IURC won’t make a decision by year-end. Citizens is playing down the importance of the Build America Bond deadline, saying Congress is talking of extending the program into next year and that the bonds aren’t any longer such a deal, anyway.
“Recent improvements in the traditional tax-exempt financing spreads combined with an excess of supply of Build America Bonds has dramatically reduced the benefit of [BAB bonds] over tax-exempt bonds, which will be available to Citizens to finance the transaction,” Dan Considine, Citizens’ spokesman, said in a statement.
Regardless of the Build America Bonds, he added, Citizens still expects to save $60 million a year after three years by combining the utilities with Citizens Gas and with Citizens’ steam and chilled water utilities.
“The [bond] financing arrangements… will not require us to adjust the purchase price” for the utilities, Citizens said.
Those who’ve opposed the sale aren’t reassured.
Ultimately, “it comes out of the ratepayers’ pockets,” said City-County Councilwoman Joanne Sanders, a Democrat.
Not obtaining BABs won’t necessarily soil the deal terms financially, but it could undermine confidence in the complicated and politically charged deal championed by Mayor Greg Ballard, a Republican . . .
“These costs just keep adding up,” said City-County Councilwoman Angela Mansfield, a Democrat.
Citizens counters that the sale is expected to generate more savings than originally projected when announced last March: $60 million versus $43 million.
Opponents are hoping the deal collapses. For one, all those infrastructure projects are concentrated in certain parts of the county, having a disproportionate benefit, says Mansfield, who represents the far-northwest side.
And, of course, there has been the ensuing scandal at the IURC involving the control Duke Energy obviously exercised over key decisionmakers. A third argument advanced by the Ballard administration for the deal was that ratepayers would be protected from unfair rate increases and other dealings with Citizens Energy because the IURC approval process would protect them from overreaching by Citizens Energy. It’s hardly been a secret that the IURC for decades has been a revolving door of employment to and from utilities," the IBJ notes. "With everything happening at the IURC, that certainly gives me pause,” Sanders said of the upcoming loss of city oversight.
I don't think the idea of the IURC rejecting the deal or requiring substantial changes in the agreement is so far fetched, particularly in light of the black eye the IURC has received from the scandal involving the hiring of the IURC's general counsel by Duke Energy while he participated in administration decisions directly impacting the utility. There is a lot of pressure on the IURC to prove it is an independent, objective regulatory agency to reassure a skeptical public it is charged with protecting. I'm also wondering if the Star's Dennis Ryerson and other proponents of the Citizens Energy deal who were so critical of those of us who opposed the deal will give us our due for warning about all of these things that have proven the validity of our arguments against the deal. None of this would have mattered if the Ballard administration had simply been up front about the deal and terminated the Veolia operating agreement before it sought approval of the deal in light of the IURC's blistering criticism of an operating agreement it deemed too one-sided in favor of Veolia. And the same would have been true if the Ballard administration had simply agreed to a straight up transfer without requiring a several hundred million dollar payment from Citizens in order to finance public infrastructure improvements entirely unrelated to the utilities' operation, which is effectively a new hidden tax in the form of higher utility rates.
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Star Has Lugar's Back
State Senator Mike Delph did little to put down speculation he may challenge six-term incumbent Sen. Richard Lugar in the 2012 primary election. After numerous local and national media inquiries regarding 2012 speculation, Senator Delph issued the following statement:
“I am deeply moved by the encouragement and attention I have received regarding speculation of a 2012 US Senate race. Senator Lugar is my Senator and I have supported him in the past, but have become increasingly concerned with his actions on my behalf and on behalf of Indiana within the last few years.In an editorial today, the Star takes notice of the growing possibility Lugar may be challenged from within his own party and says it welcomes competitive campaigns, although the editors make it clear their hearts are with Lugar:
Just today there is a story in the Indianapolis Star championing additional Federal involvement in feeding students in our public schools. While the goal may be noble, the means is blatantly unconstitutional.
His spokesperson, Mark Helmke has called him a strict constitutionalist and has also suggested that those of us who object to the DREAM Act, a bill that would grant blanket amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants, are 'un-American.' It is my hope that Sen. Lugar apologizes for the words of his staff and clearly lets them know that differences of viewpoint are precisely American.
I have neither ruled in nor ruled out any future plans. And the reason is simple. I was just re-elected 59%-41% in a Senate district President O’Bama won 56%-44%. I owe my constituents their attention and focus as we head into the upcoming session of the Indiana General Assembly. I continue to pray for Senator Lugar, his staff, our state and our nation in the hopes that we turn back to what made this country great: Faith, Freedom, Family, and a Federal government of limited and enumerated power.
My family and I will make a final decision sometime during 2011 on any Federal opportunities. In the meantime, I will continue to write and speak out on issues I know to be right and just for our state and nation. You can follow my thoughts and views by monitoring and reading my blog online: http://www.mikedelph.com/blog."
Richard Lugar has served this city, state and nation well for more than 40 years. The former two-term mayor of Indianapolis was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1976. He's seldom faced serious opposition since. In 2006, Lugar's most recent bid to retain his seat, Democrats failed even to field a candidate for a general election in which Indiana's longest-serving senator captured 87 percent of the vote.
However, there are indications that 2012 could be different. But Lugar's biggest challenge likely won't come from Democrats but from tea party activists and other conservatives within his own Republican Party.
The qualities that have earned Lugar deep respect on the national and international fronts -- his willingness to listen to and work with philosophical and political opponents, his intense focus on foreign affairs, his tendency to speak and think in shades of gray rather than black and white -- have generated frustration and distrust among some conservative voters.
The names of at least two potential primary opponents -- state Treasurer Richard Mourdock and state Sen. Mike Delph -- already have popped up. And there's reason to take such challengers seriously after this year's string of tea party upsets of mainstream Republican favorites.
Although the loss of Lugar's expertise and thoughtfulness to the state and nation would be disheartening, the potential of a primary challenge shouldn't be viewed negatively.
Every political leader, no matter how distinguished the record, should be challenged to prove to voters how he or she would lead effectively in a new term. By the time 2012 arrives, Lugar will have gone 12 years without having had to make such a case.
Perhaps Democrats will find a credible challenger by then, but given the party's need to rebuild after last month's Election Day disasters, that hope may go unfulfilled. Tea party leaders would be left then to give Lugar something more than a free pass to another six years in an office of high importance.
Lugar has made clear that he's ready to take on challengers from the left or right. That's as it should be.
No matter how much respect Hoosiers hold for their senior senator, he, like all political leaders, should be tested in a competitive campaign.
Curry Picks A Face From The Past For Chief Deputy
Prosecutor-Elect Terry Curry announced today that Hon. David Rimstidt will serve as Chief Trial Deputy when he assumes the office of Marion County Prosecutor effective January 1, 2011.If you're a regular reader of this blog, Rimstidt's name will sound familiar. He made an appearance in one of my posts discussing Dick Cady's new book, "Deadline: Indianapolis." Cady's book discusses a triple homicide involving three gay men who worked at a local gay bar and who disappeared after attending a pre-dawn party and were later found shot to death in a field up in Hamilton County. The deaths took on interesting intrigue because the Marion County prosecutor at the time (1975-79), James Kelley, had attended the same party shortly before the men disappeared. Cady recounts in his book how Myrta Pulliam led him to a young gay man who knew the murdered men and how he was caught between the powerful forces of the Indianapolis Police Department, which disliked Kelley, and the prosecutor's office run by Kelley. The story was more intriguing to Cady because Myrta Pulliam was dating Kelley's chief deputy at the time, David Rimstidt. To make a long story short, Kelley's connection to the party where the three men had last been seen alive was enough to sink him politically, although there was no indication Kelley had anything to do with their deaths. Cady's book also discusses "some very interesting stories" he heard from the bailiff for Kelley's grand jury, Joe Miller. As Cady notes, Miller had earned a reputation for selling marijuana and poppers back in those days. Miller, who went on to become extremely wealthy as the world's largest manufacturer of poppers, recently committed suicide and his business that manufactured poppers was closed after allegedly being raided by federal authorities. It's a small world, isn't it?
Curry states, "Judge Rimstidt is exceptionally qualified to serve as my Chief Trial Deputy. He has the experience and temperament needed to begin the process of restoring honor and integrity back to the Marion County Prosecutor's Office. He has a diverse background involving complex litigation matters and will be an invaluable asset not only to the Office but to all of the citizens of Marion County as we hit the ground running on January 1st to make Indianapolis a safer place to live, work and raise a family."
Rimstidt has 37 years of legal experience. His diverse background includes participation in over 100 jury trials serving as both litigator and judge. He is the former judge of Marion County Superior Court, Civil Division 5. He is a founding partner in the Alternative Dispute Resolution firm of Van Winkle*Baten*Rimstidt from which he is taking a leave of absence. Coincidentally, Judge Rimstidt is returning to the position of Chief Trial Deputy that he held from 1977 to 1979.
Ballard Must Be Delusional
Mayor Greg Ballard says he is running for a second term because people think he's been such a great fiscal steward. Say what? Yeah, that's what he told the Star's Jon Murray:
Of course, some are happy with Ballard. He's done a great job," said [Ryan] Vaughn, a Republican. "He's been an atypical politician at a time when the city needed it. He's been focused on the blocking and tackling of local government." "It's exactly what we needed -- and what we need in the future." An "atypical politician"? And no, this isn't a football game, Ryan. Whatever. I think the odds are greater Ballard, Vaughn and the rest of their cronies who've been looting the city for the past three years will be answering questions before a federal grand jury than enjoying four more years in the mayor's office. Payback is a bitch, Greg.
UPDATE: Jon Murray's memory of the 2007 election may be short, but the local Libertarian Party's memory is not as short. Marion Co. Libertarian Party Chairman Timothy Maguire reminds us of a big promise Ballard made as a condition to seeking re-election when he ran back in 2007. Here's what Maguire says about that promise:
In 2007, Ballard -- a political outsider -- ousted two-term Peterson on a swell of anti-tax anger. He said his decision to seek re-election -- this time, as an insider -- came after careful deliberation.You don't feel passionate about public service, Greg. You feel passionate about having access to the pomp and circumstance of being mayor, including memberships to country clubs that wouldn't let you on their grounds four years ago, overseas junkets, free tickets to sporting events and concerts you and your family couldn't afford to attend before and frequent dinners at St. Elmos. You had a string of failed businesses and a low-paying teaching job before a group of grassroots supporters vaulted you into the mayor's office. And how did you repay them?
"What I'm hearing from the people is they really like what we're doing. They like the fiscal stewardship," Ballard said.
"To me, it's about public service, and if you feel passionate about what you have to do, then you go through the campaigning process. . . . If I didn't think we were making a difference, then I would stand aside. But the fact is, it's pretty obvious to most people in the city that we're making a pretty big difference."
But where Ballard sees fiscal stewardship, Democrats -- and some of Ballard's most fervent earlier backers -- say he has spurned his anti-tax stance from the campaign trail. They cite his support for a hotel tax increase, hikes in dozens of fees and financial support for the Indiana Pacers.You forgot the big one, Jon. Making Bart Peterson's 65% incrrease in the income tax permanent despite his claim in 2007 he would have cut the "fluff" out of the budget rather than raise the income tax. And that was before Gov. Daniels and the General Assembly bailed him out by assuming a half billion dollars in public safety pension debt that was supposed to be paid down with that 65% increase in the income tax increase. It's not "fiscal stewardship" to play shell games by transferring ownership of the city's utilities from one publicly-owned entity to another, calling it a sale and using the proceeds financed on the back of the ratepayers to line the pockets of your pay-to-play campaign contributors.
That is one of a dozen or more areas where Ballard's record will come under intense scrutiny.
Of course, some are happy with Ballard. He's done a great job," said [Ryan] Vaughn, a Republican. "He's been an atypical politician at a time when the city needed it. He's been focused on the blocking and tackling of local government." "It's exactly what we needed -- and what we need in the future." An "atypical politician"? And no, this isn't a football game, Ryan. Whatever. I think the odds are greater Ballard, Vaughn and the rest of their cronies who've been looting the city for the past three years will be answering questions before a federal grand jury than enjoying four more years in the mayor's office. Payback is a bitch, Greg.
UPDATE: Jon Murray's memory of the 2007 election may be short, but the local Libertarian Party's memory is not as short. Marion Co. Libertarian Party Chairman Timothy Maguire reminds us of a big promise Ballard made as a condition to seeking re-election when he ran back in 2007. Here's what Maguire says about that promise:
The Libertarian Party of Marion County (LPMC) is surprised to hear that Mayor Ballard will be making a campaign announcement on Saturday, since all signs point to the suggestion that he will be a candidate for Mayor again in 2011. As per his campaign promise back in 2007, then-candidate Greg Ballard informed the public that he would not run for re-election if he did not cut the budget by at least 10% by the third year (not including public safety). A quick comparison of the 2008 budget with the just-passed 2011 budget finds no such budget cut.Thanks for reminding us of that big promise, Tim. I had forgotten about that one. There have been so many broken promises, it's hard to keep track of all of them.
"I am very surprised that Ballard decided against honoring his campaign promise not to run again if he wasn’t able to cut the budget by 10%," stated Timothy Maguire, LPMC Chairman, "especially since the budget cuts necessary would have been so easy to make. Even without the benefit of a full time team of lawyers and accountants, we were able to find at least $65 million that could have been cut off the top of the 2011 budget."
"When I ran as part of the 2007 GOP campaign team," commented At-Large City-County Councillor Ed Coleman (L), "it was because I and other small government advocates believed Greg Ballard's promise to reform government and reduce the spending. It was broken promises like this that prompted me to abandon the failed Republican Party and its bloated-government policies. I urge Indianapolis citizens to join with me in supporting candidates from the Libertarian Party, the only party left that still advocates smaller government, less spending and lower taxes."
"Our only regret is that the Mayor decided that the government budget was more important that taxpayer's pocketbooks, or his own campaign promises," said Maguire. "Many of us were hopeful that the Republicans were serious this time about the small government policies they usually just pay lip service to. Alas, this just proves once again that there will be only one party of the ballot this year speaking for the voice of the people: the Libertarian Party."
The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States, and is the only non-major party with ballot access in the state of Indiana. Libertarians believe in a small non-intrusive government that is financially responsible, administratively competent and socially tolerant.
Friday, December 03, 2010
Chief Belatedly Clears IMPD Brass In Scuffle With State Trooper
It took prodding from the FOP's leadership before either Public Safety Director Frank Straub or IMPD Chief would clear Deputy Chief William Benjamin and Maj. Chris Boomershine in a scuffle that ensued with an Indiana State Trooper, Wayne Bilings, after he marched into Benjamin's office in plain clothes while armed and began accusing him of meddling into his relationship with another woman. "After the head of the Indianapolis public safety officers union called on Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department to publicly clear the name of two high-ranking cops who were under investigation, IMPD issued a statement today to exonerate them from any wrongdoing," reports the Star's John Tuohy. A spokeswoman for IMPD released this statement today:
The IMPD Professional Standards unit has completed its investigation of the incident involving Deputy Chief William Benjamin and Indiana State Trooper Wayne Billings," said a statement issued about 2:30 p.m. by Sgt. Linda Jackson, an IMPD spokeswoman.Billings served a two day suspension from his job recently after a state police inquiry determined he had acted inproperly in the confrontation with Benjamin concerning his personal relationship with a woman.
"The investigation concluded that Deputy Chief Benjamin and Major Christopher Boomershine were exonerated from any wrongdoing in this matter," the IMPD statement said. "Chief of Police Paul Ciesielski has approved the Professional Standards findings and the case is considered closed."
Amos On Goldsmith's Role Advising Ballard
It's been no secret that Mayor Greg Ballard gave former Mayor Steve Goldsmith direct access to his office to provide "advice" since he was elected in 2007. It's also no secret that Goldsmith has been paid to represent clients before city government, although he apparently believed none of those matters required a registration as a city lobbyist before he became a deputy mayor for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. In his latest column in the Indianapolis Recorder radio talk show host Amos Brown picks up on a quote from Goldsmith discussing his role as an adviser to Ballard in the latest edition of the Indianapolis Monthly. Brown then goes on to speculate on what decisions Goldsmith's advice may have impacted:
Earlier this year, a reporter asked me about Goldsmith's new job and his rumored role in advising Tadd Miller in that controversial deal to develop the vacant Bank One Center adjacent to the vacant Market Square Arena site. I told the reporter he should put in a public records request for the financial disclosure form Goldsmith had to file before his appointment to his new position in the Bloomberg administration, particularly since New York requires more disclosure than Indianapolis. I don't know whether the reporter ever followed up on my advice and obtained Goldsmith's filing or whether the form would shed any light on what Goldsmith has been up to in Indianapolis since Ballard's election in 2007, but I think the point raised by Brown's column this week would make for an interesting investigative journalism piece. It might even interest the folks from the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department looking into public corruption matters here locally.
UPDATE: On that sweetheart Tadd Miller development project in which Goldsmith supposedly had a hand, I'm picking up new rumors that the project has been dramatically revised with more city investment in the deal. You may recall under the original deal, the City was kicking in $18.5 million to buy the parking garage adjacent to the old Bank One operations center from Smoot Construction (note the controversial Smoot deals with the old Goldsmith administration that screwed over the taxpayers, as well as Miller's ties to Kosene & Kosene, more cronies of Goldsmith) and provide a 10-year tax abatement worth at least $6.6 million with the understanding Miller would close on financing for the deal within 90 days and break ground on the project within 9 months; otherwise, the property would revert to the City. So much for holding Miller to the original timeline, eh? Miller's plan called for a mid-rise building for 650 apartments and retail space. Now I'm hearing the project may be transformed into a high-rise project involving apartments and condominiums that would include space for a new headquarters for IMPD, IFD and the Department of Public Safety. What's interesting about this new concept is how as a candidate for mayor in 2007 Ballard floated the idea of building a new high rise justice center on that very same property before dropping it like a hot potato after the Peterson campaign pounced all over him for suggesting the idea of constructing a costly new government building and since it didn't exactly fit with his meme of cutting out all the "fluff" in the city budget instead of raising taxes or borrowing more money.
For months the rumors were rampant through the political class of Indianapolis. It was said that former Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith was regularly providing advice and counsel to current Mayor Greg Ballard. But without confirmation, the rumor was one of many wild stories one hears about local politicians and politics.What is clear is that not only has Goldsmith played a key role in the Ballard administration but also many veterans of his administration, including Joe Loftus, Ann Lathrop and David Sherman, among others. There is also no doubt Goldsmith has gained financially from his role advising Ballard. The role Loftus, Lathrop and Goldsmith played in the parking meter privatization deal with ACS cannot be understated. They all have worked for ACS in some capacity.
Until now.
While standing in a long check out line on national shop till you drop day (aka “Black” Friday), I picked up the December issue of Indianapolis Monthly Magazine to kill time until my money was separated from me. Usually, Indianapolis Monthly doesn’t interest me as the magazine routinely stereotypes our African-American community as a community of just athletes and socialites; never doctors, professionals, broadcasters or journalists.
But what caught my eye was a cover headline promoting a story about Steve Goldsmith’s new job as New York City’s Deputy Mayor of Operations.
I opened up the magazine and there it was! On page 79, in the final paragraphs of a story written by Daniel S. Comiskey, one of the magazine’s senior editors, I found the bombshell confirmation of the recurring rumor; this time from Steve Goldsmith’s own lips.
Here’s exactly what Comiskey wrote:
“And behind the scenes, Goldsmith still advises (Mayor) Ballard to this day. Ballard declined to comment, but Goldsmith says the two talk fairly often by phone.”
The article quotes longtime Goldsmith advisor Mike Wells saying that Ballard is “a disciple” of Goldsmith.
Talk fairly often?
I assume that doesn’t mean the two men only talk at Thanksgiving and Christmas, times when occasional acquaintances might converse. But, if “often” means more than just twice during a 365 day year, imagine the implications.
Is the former mayor providing the “advice” that our current mayor is following? Or is our current mayor “ignoring” Goldsmith’s wisdom and counsel.
Given all the monumental mistakes that Mayor Ballard has made during his controversial three-year reign, and especially this year, one has to wonder who’s really running Indianapolis.
Take the current controversy surrounding the Brandon Johnson case. During those “often” conservations between Indianapolis’ 46th and 48th mayors, was Goldsmith the one advising Ballard to stiff arm Black leadership? Has it been Goldsmith advising Ballard to ignore the major ministers of the city’s leading Black Christian denomination?
Did Goldsmith sell Ballard on using, as his go to group in Black leadership, the Ten Point Coalition; the Boston based group Goldsmith brought to town almost 20 years ago? That could explain Mayor Ballard’s stubborn insistence on making Ten Point his lead group on police/Black community issues, at the expense of other organizations.
During Goldsmith’s reign, Indy Parks was treated like a neglected orphan. So, was Mayor Ballard following Goldsmith’s advice when he decimated parks programs and employees, especially African-American top managers; including Ballard’s cashiering of respected veteran parks professional Joe Wynns?
Was it because of Goldsmith’s advice that swimming pools in Black neighborhoods were closed?
We know Goldsmith was big on privatization; so is it because of Goldsmith’s advice that Ballard pushed through the 50-year parking meter deal, the water company deal and that multi-million payoff to the Pacers?
Is the reason Frank Straub is in Indianapolis as public safety director because of Goldsmith’s telephoned whisperings in Mayor Ballard’s ear?
Is Ballard’s new found toughness against the rank and file of IMPD due to Goldsmith’s blandishments? I’m sure Goldsmith still smarts because of the fallout from the infamous 1996 downtown police brawl, when white cops went wild, torpedoing Goldsmith’s chance to be governor?
Is Goldsmith’s advice his way of getting back at a police department that ruined his ambitions?
Before Goldsmith became a New York City deputy mayor eight months ago, he had financial interests in companies and consultancies doing business with the city of Indianapolis. Interests that the Ballard administration has never publicly explained or disclosed.
That raises severe ethics questions from an administration that talks a good game about ethics, but little else.
Goldsmith is a New York City employee, a deputy mayor on the clock 24/7. So why is he providing “advice” to a mayor 643 miles away while on the Big Apple taxpayers’ dime?
Goldsmith works for Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire media magnate New York City mayor whose imperial and imperious “my way or the highway” style of governing is exasperating New Yorkers. Has Bloomberg’s style, through Goldsmith’s teaching, rubbed off on Mayor Ballard, who increasingly shows mini-Bloomberg tendencies of not listening to people, not consulting key city constituencies and adopting an imperious governing style, not necessarily suited for Indy?
Maybe Rev. Al Sharpton should talk to his fellow New Yorker Mayor Bloomberg and on behalf of our community and city, and ask Bloomberg to make his deputy mayor cut the strings to our mayor.
Earlier this year, a reporter asked me about Goldsmith's new job and his rumored role in advising Tadd Miller in that controversial deal to develop the vacant Bank One Center adjacent to the vacant Market Square Arena site. I told the reporter he should put in a public records request for the financial disclosure form Goldsmith had to file before his appointment to his new position in the Bloomberg administration, particularly since New York requires more disclosure than Indianapolis. I don't know whether the reporter ever followed up on my advice and obtained Goldsmith's filing or whether the form would shed any light on what Goldsmith has been up to in Indianapolis since Ballard's election in 2007, but I think the point raised by Brown's column this week would make for an interesting investigative journalism piece. It might even interest the folks from the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department looking into public corruption matters here locally.
UPDATE: On that sweetheart Tadd Miller development project in which Goldsmith supposedly had a hand, I'm picking up new rumors that the project has been dramatically revised with more city investment in the deal. You may recall under the original deal, the City was kicking in $18.5 million to buy the parking garage adjacent to the old Bank One operations center from Smoot Construction (note the controversial Smoot deals with the old Goldsmith administration that screwed over the taxpayers, as well as Miller's ties to Kosene & Kosene, more cronies of Goldsmith) and provide a 10-year tax abatement worth at least $6.6 million with the understanding Miller would close on financing for the deal within 90 days and break ground on the project within 9 months; otherwise, the property would revert to the City. So much for holding Miller to the original timeline, eh? Miller's plan called for a mid-rise building for 650 apartments and retail space. Now I'm hearing the project may be transformed into a high-rise project involving apartments and condominiums that would include space for a new headquarters for IMPD, IFD and the Department of Public Safety. What's interesting about this new concept is how as a candidate for mayor in 2007 Ballard floated the idea of building a new high rise justice center on that very same property before dropping it like a hot potato after the Peterson campaign pounced all over him for suggesting the idea of constructing a costly new government building and since it didn't exactly fit with his meme of cutting out all the "fluff" in the city budget instead of raising taxes or borrowing more money.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Community Courts Employee Accused Of Sexually Exploiting Criminal Offenders
A 32-year-old Marion County Community Courts employee has been charged with several felony counts of criminal deviate conduct, sexual misconduct, sexual battery and one misdemeanor charge of public indecency in connection with his work supervising offenders while they were performing community service work. Scott Downin is accused of telling the offenders he wasn't worried about being caught because he had Judge David Certo "in his pocket." Downin allegedly targeted offenders found guilty of prostitution. Fox59 News reports on the sordid details:
An Indianapolis Community Court crew leader now has a court date of his own. Scott Downin, 32, was arrested November 23rd after being accused of intimidating defendants who were court ordered to perform community service.
According to a probable cause affidavit obtained by Fox59 News Wednesday, Downin would allow prostitutes to perform sexual favors when they were supposed to be working off community service hours. The alleged sex-related acts that led to five felony charges include criminal deviate conduct, sexual misconduct, sexual battery and one misdemeanor charge of public indecency.
Graphic details included in the probable cause detail the testimony of two prostitutes who claim Downin forcibly touched their genitals and showed his penis while they were supposed to be working outside Gleaners Food Bank near the Indianapolis International Airport.
The alleged sexual assaults reportedly happened November 20th and 22nd.
Downin, a former Marion County Sheriff's Department employee, is also accused of orchestrating work details so that he would be along with those who had been charged and sentenced as prostitutes
The location of the two sexual batteries, according to court documents, was the Indianapolis Community Court building at 902 Virginia Avenue.
It's also alleged that Downin told a fellow employee that he was not worried because he had the judge in "his pocket."
Community Court 12 Judge David Certo is the only judge working out of the Virginia Avenue building with Scott Downin. Judge Certo did not return Fox59's call seeking comment Wednesday afternoon.
Downin is free on a $5,000 bond and is due in court to face the six criminal charges on December 7th. Indianapolis city officials did not answer questions Wednesday relating to the case including how long he had been on the job or if he is still an employee
Daniels Administration Belatedly Removes IURC Ethics Officer From Role In Duke Case
The IURC ethics officer who used smoke and mirrors to make it appear there was no problem with the IURC's general counsel Scott Storms leaving his job to join Duke Energy despite his direct participation in matters affecting the utility has been belatedly removed from her position by the Daniels administration. The Star's John Russell continues to best other reporters in coverage of this ongoing scandal:
The ethics officer at the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission has been reassigned amid questions over her role in Duke Energy's hiring of a high-ranking commission attorney who was later embroiled in a conflict-of-interest scandal.Part of a broader restructuring effort? Yeah, right.
Loraine L. Seyfried, who also holds the title of chief administrative law judge at the IURC, was removed Monday from all cases connected to Duke's massive coal-gasification plant in Edwardsportat the IURC, was removed Monday from all cases connected to Duke's massive coal-gasification plant in Edwardsport, a commission spokeswoman confirmed Tuesday
The commission also took away Seyfried's duties as ethics officer and gave them to another IURC official, Doug Webber, who joined the commission this week as general counsel. Webber previously was chief legal counsel for the Indiana Department of Insurance.
The move comes less than a week after The Indianapolis Star reported that Duke's top Indiana executive on Aug. 1 e-mailed the then-chairman of the IURC, outlining what Seyfried should include in her ethics review of Duke's hiring of Scott Storms.
Storms then was general counsel and chief administrative law judge at the IURC but was negotiating a job offer from Duke, one of the state's largest utilities. While discussing employment with Duke, Storms was presiding over numerous cases involving the company, including cost overruns at the $2.9 billion coal-gasification plant in southwestern Indiana.
The Duke executive -- Mike Reed, then-president of Duke Energy Indiana -- e-mailed David Lott Hardy, then chairman of the IURC. Seyfried "must clearly spell out how [Storms] would be walled off from Edwardsport and therefore meet the [ethics] test," he wrote.
On Aug. 25, Seyfried sent a three-page memo to Storms, stating her opinion that his prospective employment with Duke would not violate the state ethics code, as he had not negotiated or administered a contract with Duke while with the IURC.
"It is my understanding that upon submission of your resume to Duke Energy Indiana, you took steps necessary to immediately screen yourself from pending Duke Energy Indiana proceedings to which you were assigned . . . and to reassign the cases to other administrative law judges," Seyfried's memo read . . .
Seyfried did not return phone calls from The Star on Tuesday seeking an explanation of her role in the ethics review.
The IURC declined to answer numerous questions about Seyfried's role in reviewing the Storms affair, including what steps Seyfried took to verify whether Storms had recused himself from Duke cases, when Storms submitted his resume to Duke and whether she was asked to conduct her review in a certain way. Danielle McGrath, the IURC spokeswoman, referred those questions to the Indiana inspector general's office, which could not be reached for comment late Tuesday.
She said the Edwardsport cases have been assigned to another administrative law judge, David Veleta.
Asked why the commissioners removed Seyfried from the Edwardport cases, she said: "Reassigning the cases is one of the many steps the commission has taken, and will continue to take, to ensure public confidence."
Her removal as ethics officer was "part of a broader restructuring effort" at the IURC, McGrath said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)