Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Council Votes Down Attempt To Override Veto Of Backdoor Pay Raise

Indianapolis City-County Council members voted 10-14 against an override attempt of former Mayor Greg Ballard's veto of the 43% backdoor pay raise lame duck City-County Council members attempted to pass last year following a municipal election during which none of them expressed support for higher pay for council members. Those wanting a pay raise now who voted to override the mayor's veto included the following:

Adamson (D)
Clay (D)
Gray (D)
Jackson (D)
Lewis (D)
Mascari (D)
Miller (R)
Oliver (D)
Osili (D)
Simpson (D)


Anonymous said...

Speaking of local politics run amok, I observed a morning in Judge Brenda Roper’s Center Township Small Claims Court yesterday, and it was a travesty. I had been forewarned by fellow landlords that this was definitely not Judge Scott’s courtroom anymore, that landlords no longer received respect, and that Judge Roper has a knee jerk tendency to throw people out of her courtroom on whim. All this was true, and more. Judge Scott’s staff, mostly efficient, moved from the old City County bldg courtroom to the new one at the Carson Center on Fall Creek Road, and they manage to keep things running. But one fat constable/sheriff, also transplanted, suddenly demanded, for no apparent reason, that all remaining people in the courtroom would now stand up and move to every available seat at the front. This obese, old man, a landlord, struggled and struggled to stand. Even his wife couldn’t pull him up. Obviously ill, finally two litigants helped pull him up so that he could move up TWO rows, all while fat sheriff stood there and watched. I don’t know what’s more shocking. Watching Judge Roper throw out every litigant that wants to tell their story, or her staff abuse elderly, disabled people for amusement in some cruel, mandatory game of musical chairs. But I was not amused. And neither were the other landlords. We are used to this courtroom operating efficiently and respectfully towards plaintiffs and defendants alike under Judge Scott, and even the Judge who preceded her, a legacy of some 20 years. Something is terribly wrong now. Terribly wrong.

Anonymous said...

Indianapolis=broken city. The pirates are firmly in control and have the blessing of the state, the local media and the developers anc crony capitalists who feel that it is YOUR obligation to cover their risk. Sell your properties and get out. Now. Let these criminals twist in the wind, which is exactly what will happen when the last resident who pays the freight leaves the city of Indianapolis.

Anonymous said...

Look at the names on this list. Greedy career politicians all. Every one of them a liberal Democrat. And yes, I include the two-faced, double-speaking, crony supporting Jeff Miller in that political party. This clown could never be elected in most any other city-county counselor district in town.

Jeff Miller said...

I'm constantly amazed at how angry the comments are that get posted here. Gary always seems to keep the conversation at a calm level, but the responses are just stunning in the tone. It's a real shame, because there isn't the ability for productive conversations when people speak with such abrasive language. Regardless, I just wanted to mention the reasoning I gave on the council floor for my vote. I knew in advance the veto could not be overridden, but I was upset at the former Mayor for the rationale he used for the veto, something Gary himself questioned in an earlier blog. Whether you feel the increase for the council was justified or not, the way the Mayor handled the veto was a shame and Gary had the same impression as I did on that. Just thought I'd make that point. Keep up the good work and hold people's feet to the fire, Gary!

Gary R. Welsh said...

Jeff, I don't disagree that Mayor Ballard's explanation for his veto was specious given his past track record. I think it was his way of retaliating against council members with whom he had strong disagreements over policy and procedure in the past. I still believe the council members should have taken up the issue during the budget process and debated it at that time if they believed raises should be included in this year's budget. There's no reason the new council can't take up the matter this year and pass a proposal in a more transparent fashion. I came of age in politics when my Illinois legislature voted itself a whopping 45% pay raise in a lame duck session right after the election. Voters were infuriated and responded by putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot that cut the size of the House by 1/3. The ballot initiative passed and made a bad legislature an even worse, less responsive legislature than the one the voters took out their anger against. I think it has something do with the fact that Illinois lawmakers allowed the state to go deeply into debt and run deficits year after year despite a constitutional mandate requiring a balanced budget. It's rather ironic that the old part-time legislature did a much better job with the budget than the full-time professional lawmakers they have now.

Jeff Miller said...

Completely agree, Gary. I was torn on whether to vote to override, but did it solely on the grounds of protesting Ballard's veto. Ironically, had we overridden it, it would not have taken affect until 2017, because it must fully pass in the prior year, which it did not. So you are correct that the best time to take this up is during the budget cycle. Well stated as always.

Flogger said...

Well one thing carried over from the Ballard Regime, lousy to no snow removal. Roads have been an icy mess since Sunday. Two homes broken into in my neighborhood last week. Police said they would patrol more often, zero times zero is still zero.

If the Council needs a raise tap some C.I.B. money they always seem to have enough funds for Corporate Welfare. Yeah I know the Council cannot take that money for a raise it is earmarked for the Billionaires.