Why Can't The Indianapolis Star Report Like This?

It seems like there is hardly a week that goes by that either the Chicago Tribune or the Sun-Times doesn't have at least one investigative story about political clout, pay-to-play or some other form of political cronyism taking place in Chicago and Illinois politics. Occasionally, they find something really "Golden" that takes out a governor, an alderman or state lawmaker. The Tribune's Jeff Coen, who first reported on the FBI wiretapped conversations that led to the impeachment and ultimate conviction of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich on political corruption charges, managed to get his anger management problem under control (he was arrested last month for kicking out a window on a CTA train) to write another investigative story on Mayor Rahm Emanuel that is pretty much standard fare at the Tribune.

When Emanuel took office as mayor, he signed an executive order that banned city contractors from contributing to the mayor's campaign committee. In Indianapolis, Mayor Greg Ballard relies on city contractors for about 90% of his campaign contributions, but you wouldn't know that from reading the Indianapolis Star where the former managing editor actually rejected in an opinion piece one time the notion that the concept of pay-to-play existed in Indianapolis. Not surprisingly, the Tribune has sought to hold Emanuel accountable for enforcing his executive order and asked how a major restaurateur that operates at O'Hare International Airport could skirt the executive order. Here's what Coen found:

In April, Mayor Rahm Emanuel stood in the newly remodeled Terminal 5 at O'Hare International Airport, unveiling the sparkling gateway as the newest evidence of Chicago's global status. The project developer predicted international fliers would generate big sales at the new shops and restaurants, thanks in part to the airport debut of famed local restaurant group Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises and its popular Chicago brands, including Wow Bao, Big Bowl and R.J. Grunts Burger and Fries. 

Just a month earlier, Emanuel himself was at a Lettuce Entertain You restaurant, records show, for a political fundraiser that earned him more than $26,000 from restaurant founder Richard Melman and his family. The money from the event at Joe's Seafood, Prime Steak and Stone Crab was part of more than $59,000 donated to the mayor's re-election fund in March by people and restaurants tied to Lettuce Entertain You. 

A campaign spokesman for Emanuel said the mayor's political operation asked for the fundraiser hosted by Lettuce Entertain You, which stands to reap profits from its preferential arrangement at the airport approved by Emanuel's administration. Both the campaign spokesman and a spokeswoman for the mayor's office said the circumstances did not violate the mayor's executive order banning city contractors from donating to him because Lettuce Entertain You is a licensee under its arrangement with the firm that has the city contract to run concessions at O'Hare. 

"We follow the law and the executive order," said Emanuel spokeswoman Kelley Quinn, who declined to answer detailed questions about why the mayor sought the fundraiser. "We believe that this situation holds true to both and does not violate the spirit of the executive order either." 

But the donations provide a fresh example of how the ethics rules Emanuel signed on his first day in office don't prevent him from raising millions of dollars in political cash from people who are beholden to his administration . . .

The story goes on to discuss stories the Tribune has done in the past about Emanuel soliciting large campaign contributions from businesses and individuals seeking to do business with the city and from real estate developers who need the city's blessing for their projects and bond lawyers who perform work on bond finance deals. Wouldn't it be nice if a reporter in this town could actually perform the kind of investigative journalism on how business is conducted at our city hall, which is every bit as corrupt, if not more corrupt, than Chicago's city hall? After all, virtually every major decision made by Mayor Ballard is linked to campaign contributions. Would someone at the Star actually study his campaign finance reports for a change?

Huh? Ballard Claims Councilor's Use Of "Cricket-Proof" Is Racist

Just when you thought Greg Ballard couldn't sink any lower as a totally hypocritical, thin-skinned politician, he outdid himself. At a news conference announcing the Democrats' alternative to his Rebuild Indy II re-election spending proposal today with the Mayor's wasteful, still under construction International Sports Park as a backdrop, Councilor Zach Adamson said a Democrat plan that relies less on borrowed money to repair Indianapolis' streets and sidewalks and more on surplus funds in the cash-flush downtown TIF district would be "cricket-proof."

It was clear that the context in which Adamson's remarks were made referred to the Mayor's unilateral decision to invest millions of dollars in a new sports park rather than the infrastructure improvements that the council intended Rebuild Indy funds to be used, and that the council intended to ensure that future monies spent from the fund were limited to approved funds for infrastructure improvements only. Mayor Ballard reacted by accusing Adamson of using the words "cricket-proof" to "demean minorities" according to the Star's John Tuohy.

"To say something like that, what do you think if you are Indian in our community?" Ballard told The Indianapolis Star, noting that cricket is the most popular sport in India. "To say something is cricket-proof is demeaning." . . . 

"We are a major city, and we are welcoming international sports here," he said. "We want to attract top talent to this city. We are essentially saying, 'You are not welcome here.' It is incredibly demeaning."

The only Indians in Indianapolis who would have been offended by Adamson's comments were the Indians who own an engineering firm that has been qualified as a minority-owned business that receives tens of millions of dollars in city contracts in exchange for making tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to Ballard's campaign committee. They are responsible for putting the foolish notion of building an international sports park that would serve as host to international cricket matches in Ballard's small mind. Perhaps if you did a little more listening to what the city's residents think instead of your campaign contributors, Greg, you wouldn't make such foolish decisions in spending our public tax dollars. And by the way, Mr. Touhy, you need to recheck the cost of the Ballard's cricket park. The true cost far exceeds the $4.9 million figure referenced in your story.

Indiana Supreme Court Suspends Ogden For 30 Days For Criticism Of Judge After Finding In Favor Of Him On Four Of Five Issues

The Indiana Supreme Court has handed down its decision in fellow blogger and attorney Paul Ogden's attorney disciplinary action in which it rejected 80% of the findings of hearing officer Robert York, who had recommended that Ogden be suspended from the practice of law for one year for criticizing a Hendricks County superior court judge's handling of a probate estate in a private e-mail communication. The Supreme Court rejected three of the hearing officer's findings of misconduct regarding statements Ogden made about Judge David Coleman, and it dismissed out of hand York's finding that Ogden had violated the rule against ex parte communications with a judge. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court in an opinion written by Chief Justice Brent Dickson issued a 30-day suspension rather than a public reprimand because it found Ogden had been "obstreperous" rather than "cooperative" during the matter, which essentially means he contested the charges brought against him.

The e-mail communication that served as the basis for the disciplinary action was sent by Ogden concerning Judge Coleman's handling of the estate to one of the family members who shared it with other family members and opposing counsel. Someone later anonymously delivered the e-mail communication to Judge Coleman, who became infuriated after reading it. Ogden had expressed his disappointment in Judge Coleman and sharply criticized his handling of a probate estate case that had dragged on for nearly five years during which time the personal representative dissipated the bulk of the estate's assets during his unsupervised administration of the estate. The criticism included allowing the case to be opened as an unsupervised estate. Another judge had initially been assigned the probate case when it was allowed to be opened as an unsupervised estate; Judge Coleman assumed control of the case a few months later. After Ogden had been retained by one of the family member heirs of the estate years after it had been opened, he successfully filed a Trial Rule 53.1 petition to remove Judge Coleman, which is commonly known as the "lazy judge rule" that allows a party to petition for removal of a judge who has failed to timely act on matters in a case pending before his court. This happened nearly four years after the case had been opened.

Judge Coleman filed a complaint against Ogden after he contacted him and requested that he offer a written apology to him for the critical comments he made in the e-mail, which Ogden declined to do because he believed the criticism was supported by the facts and that his First Amendment rights afforded him the right to express an opinion on a judge's professional performance. The hearing officer made four findings that he contended supported a violation of Rule 8.2(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides: "A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge . . . ."  The hearing officer sought to have Ogden suspended for a period of not less than one year with no automatic right to reinstatement based upon his findings that Ogden violated Rule 8.2(a). Those findings were as follows:

 1) Ogden alleged that Judge Coleman committed malfeasance in the initial stages of the administration of the Estate by allowing it to be opened as an unsupervised estate, by appointing a personal representative with a conflict of interest, and by not requiring the posting of a bond.

(2) Ogden alleged that Judge Coleman committed malfeasance in the subsequent administration of the Estate by, among other things, permitting misconduct by the personal representative, which resulted in dissipation of Estate assets.  

(3) Ogden alleged that Judge Coleman should have recused himself from the case because he was a friend of some members of the family, including the personal representative, and thus had a disqualifying conflict of interest.  

(4) Ogden alleged that Judge Coleman was unqualified as a judge and he engaged in judicial misconduct in presiding over the estate.  

The standard that the Supreme Court applied in determining whether Ogden violated the rule was whether he "lack[ed] any objectively reasonable basis for making the statement at issue, considering its nature and the context in which the statement was made." Because Judge Coleman was not the judge assigned the case when it was initially opened as an unsupervised estate, the Court concluded that the hearing officer had met his burden in finding that Ogden violated Rule 8.2(a) in regards to the first finding; however, the Court found that the hearing officer had failed to meet that burden with respect to his findings for numbered findings two through four, which had equally critical observations about Judge Coleman's conduct in handling the case. The Court found that finding two accusing Judge Coleman of "malfeasance" that contributed to the dissipation of the estate involved statements that were protected by Ogden's First Amendment rights. On finding three, Ogden relied on statements of his client and other family members to support his contention that Judge Coleman had a conflict of interest because of an alleged personal friendship with the personal representative, which Judge Coleman denied; therefore, the fact that it turned out to be false was ameliorated by the fact that Ogden had not made the statement with a reckless disregard for the truth the Court concluded. Finally, the Court found that finding four concerning Ogden's belief that Judge Coleman was "unqualified" fell within the nature of statements of opinion as opposed to statements of fact.

The hearing officer had recommended on the second charge of the complaint against Ogden that he be publicly reprimanded for sending a letter to all Marion County judges advising them on a recent Supreme Court opinion which had held that Indiana law required that monies obtained through civil forfeiture actions were to be deposited in the Common School Fund, not distributed to the prosecutor's office and local law enforcement as was often taking place. Ogden had also sent copies of the same letter to the prosecutor's office, the Attorney General and the public safety director. Even though Ogden had no pending civil forfeiture actions before any of the courts, the disciplinary commission sought to discipline Ogden for allegedly violating the rule against ex parte communications after Judge Patrick McCarty forwarded a copy of the letter to the Commission complaining about it. The hearing officer sided with the Commission, but the Supreme Court rejected that finding in its entirety. "It was not an attempt to communicate with the judges about any particular case without the involvement of opposing parties," the Court held. "There is no allegation that [Ogden] misstated the law relating to forfeitures. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the Commission has not presented clear and convincing evidence that [Ogden's] sending the letters to the Marion County judges was prejudicial to the administration of justice."

The fact that Ogden had never been the subject of a disciplinary action in his more than 25 years' practicing law in this state was a strong factor in mitigation according to the Court's opinion. The only aggravating factor was the Court's conclusion that Ogden had been "obstreperous rather than cooperative" during the disciplinary matter, a finding the Court always seems to make in disciplinary cases whenever an attorney contests the disciplinary charges brought against him or her rather than admitting the wrongdoing and not requesting a full-blown hearing on the charges as Ogden insisted upon. Ogden's brief had argued that a 30-day suspension with automatic reinstatement was the maximum sanction supported by the alleged misconduct, which the Court agreed was the appropriate discipline. The Court further ordered Ogden to pay half the costs and expenses of the proceeding, plus a fee of $250 payable to the Court's clerk. Those expenses will likely run well into the thousands of dollars if they include the amount the hearing officer billed the commission for his work. The all-day hearing alone lasted 11 1/2 hours.

This case has been closely watched by attorneys throughout the state, as well as legal ethicists around the country, who have increasingly been critical of decisions in a growing number of states where the high courts have severely sanctioned attorneys for leveling public criticisms against judges. There is great concern that if attorneys who are most knowledgeable of the professional performance of judges are unable to exercise their free speech rights to express their views, judges effectively become immune from public criticism as public officials who should be as accountable to the public as any other public official. Ogden's case was particularly troubling because his criticism was made in a private e-mail and was not a public communication. The public was not even aware of the criticism Ogden had made of Judge Coleman until the disciplinary commission filed charges against him seeking his suspension from the practice of law. Attorneys in Indiana should be very thankful to Ogden for standing his ground and fighting for a fundamental right all attorneys should hold as sacred. He has suffered severe and undue hardship as a result of this entire ordeal. This decision, in my opinion, exonerates him for the most part, notwithstanding the additional hardship of a 30-day suspension he must incur. This was certainly not the outcome desired by the disciplinary commission or the hearing officer.

Ogden posted the following statement on his Facebook account this evening in response to today's decision:

Thanks, for all the supportive comments on my disciplinary case. A special thanks also goes out to my attorney Adam Lenkowsky who did a terrific job representing me. I would recommend his services for all attorneys facing off against the Commission. The case was handed down today. The Disciplinary Commission was trying to get me suspended for at least 1 year w/o automatic readmission (which effectively makes the suspension go on much longer if not permanent) for my comments regarding Judge Coleman in an email. That would have probably ended my legal career, a fact the Commission knew full well and wanted to have happen. The Hearing Officer agreed with the one year and no automatic readmission. The Court though decided on a 30 day suspension with automatic readmission a far, far cry from what the Commission and Hearing Officer wanted. In the decision, the Indiana Supreme Court decided against the Commission (and for me) on about 80% of the matters, including a complete rejection of the 2nd count of the Commission's charge, i.e. the claim I tried to influence Marion County Judges by an "ex parte" communication when I sent a letter trying to educate them about the process they're supposed to be following at the conclusion of civil forfeiture actions. I continually pointed out to the Commission that it was not ex parte and without a scintilla of merit, but the Commission refused to withdraw the charge and quite remarkably the Hearing Officer decided against me on that issue too. Anyway, I need more time to study the decision to comment further but it appears there is some good attorney free speech stuff in the opinion. Regardless, my hope is that this case proves to be a catalyst for the Indiana Supreme Court to take a good hard look at the operations of the Disciplinary Commission (including the need to terminate the services of Executive Secretary Michael Witte) and to insist on changes so that the Commission ceases its continued attacks on attorney free speech and redirects its efforts and resources to going after dishonest attorneys who are harming the public.

UPDATE: Paul has blogged more about the decision here in which he discusses his lengthy history of dealing with the disciplinary commission and the "enormous resources" he says the commission has devoted in an effort to strip him of his law license, which he believes is attributable, in part, to his past public criticism of the commission. Note that neither Judge Coleman nor Judge McCarty were required to file grievances against Ogden; rather, both simply forwarded Ogden's communications to the commission for further investigation, which resulted in the commission filing formal grievances against him. Judges, as a matter of practice, aren't required to file formal grievances against attorneys in order for the commission to act upon them. A judge knows by merely referring a matter to the commission an attorney will be investigated. Interestingly, judges have a duty to report a criminal conviction entered by his or her court against a licensed attorney to the commission; however, judges frequently fail to do this for whatever reason.

UPDATE II: The Disciplinary Commission billed Ogden $10,300 for his share of the expenses for their failed efforts to bar him from the practice of law in Indiana.

Obama Sends American Soldiers Back To Iraq

Last Friday, President Obama announced that he would be sending no troops to Iraq to counteract the insurgency of radical Islamist terrorists known as ISIS, who the U.S. originally trained and armed to overthrow the Assad government with his full support.  During an extended Father's Day weekend in California where the President attended a political fundraiser and played some more rounds of golf, he had a change of heart. Yesterday, he announced he would send troops to Iraq after all. The President assures us that the 275 troops equipped for combat are only there to provide security to U.S. diplomats and embassy personnel. As things spiral out of control in the Middle East largely because of our own failed policies, the government-run media is doing all it can to shift Americans' attention to the World Cup in Brazil where the U.S. beat a team from the impoverished country of Ghana in a preliminary match so we can watch pathetic sports nuts chant "USA." In other news, Rome burns.

Hillary Clinton Haunted By Old Interview About Child Molestation Case

A nearly 30-year old recorded interview of Hillary Clinton has surfaced in which she discusses a criminal case she handled when she first moved to Arkansas with her new husband involving an accused child molester. It reveals much about Clinton. The first thing I observed was the noticeably fake southern accent  in which the Park Ridge, Illinois native educated at Wellesley College in Massachusetts and Yale Law School in Connecticut spoke. She apparently lost her accent as soon as Bill and her set their sights on the national political scene. Clinton laughs as she tells the interviewer that she lost all confidence in lie detector tests after one showed her client, who she was convinced was guilty of molesting a 12-year old girl, was telling the truth. Clinton boasts of a mistake made by the prosecution in the handling of evidence that allowed her client to escape more serious felony charges and be released from jail after spending only a short time in jail on misdemeanor charges.

A Daily Mail story on the newly-discovered recordings recounts an old Newsday story in which Clinton had accused the 12-year old girl of making up the allegations against her client and claiming that the girl often fantasized about having relations with older men. That's reminiscent of the war she has waged to discredit all of the women who have come forward to accuse Bill of extramarital relationships, sexual harassment and even rape over the years. Clinton spoke light-heartedly about the case during the interview, laughing on several occasions, particularly about the destruction of key blood evidence collected by the state from her client's underwear. Well-known legal ethics expert Professor Ronald Rotunda questioned whether Clinton's open discussion of her client's case didn't violate the attorney-client privilege. "You can't do that," Rotunda said. "Unless the client says, 'You're free to tell people that you really think I'm a scumbag, and the only reason I got a lighter sentence is because you're a really clever lawyer."

Clinton's client was accused of plying the 12-year old girl with whiskey and coke before raping her in his car. According to Clinton's account, the forensic lab that tested the blood cut out a part of the underwear tested and returned them to the evidence room after throwing away the part of the underwear it tested. Clinton claimed she took the returned underwear herself to a renowned expert in New York, who determined the underwear lacked enough blood evidence to test. I'm not sure how she was able to do that without breaking the chain of custody for the evidence, but that's the story she told.

Pence Fires FSSA Secretary

Gov. Mike Pence has fired Family & Social Services Secretary Debra Minott after less than 18 months on the job from what is one of the most important administrative appointments in state government in terms of size and impact on Hoosier lives. The governor's office confirmed to the Star that discussions about Minott's planned departure signal a change in direction at the agency. "When asked if Minott was leaving on her own accord, the governor’s office said details would be coming," the Star reported. "But no further information on the reason for the “change in direction” was offered." Minott's departure comes at a time when the Pence administration is seeking a waiver from the federal government for its expanded Healthy Indiana Plan ("HIP") to provide health care coverage to lower-income Hoosiers.

WIBC Dumps Morning News Show Host Because He Wasn't Opinionated Enough

Emmis Communications' WIBC-FM news/talk radio station in Indianapolis is dumping long-time morning news host Steve Simpson because he doesn't inject enough opinions into his morning drive time slot and is replacing him with some guy named Tony Katz from one of their stations in Los Angeles to take his place.

Simpson was informed Friday that his contract would not be renewed by Indianapolis-based Emmis Communications Corp., which owns WIBC.

“We now have more empathy than ever for what the [Indianapolis] Colts went through with Peyton Manning,” said Emmis market manager Charlie Morgan. “This certainly has nothing to do with Steve’s performance. … This should not be taken in any way as our lack of appreciation for Steve’s 22 years of service at WIBC.

“He’s just not the right guy for what the role of host now requires,” Morgan added. “What we’re asking our hosts to do is offer opinion and perspective, and [Simpson] was not comfortable with that. He was more comfortable in a more traditional news role.”

By early afternoon Friday, all mention of Simpson had been removed from WIBC’s web site.

Simpson’s slot, weekdays from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m., will be filled by conservative news talk show host Tony Katz, Morgan said.

It's interesting that Emmis chose to dump their only on-air, openly gay host from their line-up in the midst of last week's Indy Pride celebration. I thought the point of Simpson's morning show was to stick to the news, weather, traffic reporting and the sort during the morning drive slot rather than bombard listeners with the conservative talk radio they get more than a full dose of daily from Garrison, Rush, Dana, Chicks on the Right and Abdul. The show is called "Indy's Morning News." Maybe Steve should have added chair-throwing to his repertoire.  

 

Vernon Brown Leaving Council Early To Allow Successor's Selection By Party

Long-time City-County Councilor Vernon Brown announced that he will be resigning from the council shortly rather than serving until the end of his term next year. That will pave the way for a handful of party leaders to meet and choose his replacement at a caucus election rather than leaving it to voters to decide. Brown, an Indianapolis Fire Department battalion chief, is one of three current city council members who are barred from seeking re-election because they also hold jobs with the city or county government. Mary Moriarty Adams (D), who has a make-work job in the county assessor's office, and Steve Talley (D), who has a job carved out for him at IMPD, are also barred from seeking re-election unless they agree to give up their government jobs.

The IBJ's Kathleen McLaughlin, who just did a hit piece of Councilor Christine Scales for being an honest public servant who exercises independent judgment rather than voting down the line with the corrupt forces that control local government, used the opportunity to take a swipe at Brown for blocking Mayor Greg Ballard's ReBuild Indy II re-election spending bill in his role as chairman of the Public Works Committee.

Democrat Vernon Brown, a key opponent of Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard’s infrastructure-spending plan, said he plans to resign from the City-County Council this summer . . .

It also means the council Public Works Committee would have a new chairman, though that person would most likely be a Democrat . . .

Ballard, a Republican, last summer proposed a second round of infrastructure funding under a program called Rebuild Indy 2, but Brown has refused to hear it. Republicans recently said they plan to introduce a revised version of Rebuild Indy 2 that would answer many of Democrats’ objections.

“He is chairman of the committee and has put major stops to getting anything done,” said Janice McHenry, a Republican member of the committee. Apart from Rebuild Indy 2, McHenry said a number of minor proposals, such as new stop signs and intersection signals, have been slow to move through the council because of committee meetings Brown canceled.

Whether the parties can reach a compromise on Rebuild Indy 2 will depend on who becomes the new committee chairperson, McHenry said. She said there are other Democrats who would be easier to negotiate with than Brown . . .

There are legitimate reasons for criticizing Brown's service on the council, but his opposition to ReBuild Indy II is not one of them. It's yet another example of biased news reporting by folks masquerading as legitimate news reporters who in fact are doing nothing more than carrying water for the downtown mafia, which continually operates our city-county government for their exclusive profiteering purposes to the detriment of the taxpaying public. Talley is running for election as Lawrence Township Trustee this year, while Adams tells McLaughlin she plans to seek re-election. After all, what would Sheriff John Layton do without her on the council carrying his water for him in exchange for the make-work job he provides to her husband?  She's got to stick around at least long enough to help win approval of the P3 deal for a new criminal justice system that promises all kinds of rewards for members of the downtown mafia. I'm sure one of the local nonprofits operating in Marion County will create a make work job for Adams like they already do for other council members and their spouses.

Star Lies To Readers About Why Indianapolis' Potholes Aren't Being Repaired

Fellow blogger Pat Andrews has a spot-on analysis about the Indianapolis Star's continuing theme of misrepresenting to Indianapolis residents why street potholes aren't getting filled. If you believe the Star's meme, it's all because of political bickering between the Ballard administration and the Democrats on the council, with the Democrats largely to blame. The truth is far different than what you will read about in the Star.

As Andrews points out, the debate began long before the harsh weather this winter created thousands of potholes all over town. Ballard came up with a $350 million ReBuild Indy II plan, a euphemism for a political plan to borrow a bunch of money to spend on street projects right before the 2015 mayoral race so people can see big signs up all over town advertising to voters how much Ballard is committed to improving neighborhoods. What the Star doesn't tell its readers is that the City already has $215 million available for street repairs. Mayor Ballard has been holding all of that spending hostage until Democrats on the council go along with a plan to borrow an additional $135 million to push the total size of the spending to $350 million through the issuance of 30-year bonds. Of course, that means your children and grandchildren will be paying decades into the future for some street repairs that might last 10 years if we're lucky, along with the added $90 million in interest costs.

Has anyone from the Star bothered to go out and check the condition of many of those streets that were repaved only four years ago before the last election with ReBuild Indy money? It's an exercise worth undertaking to consider whether the manner in which the streets are being repaired are being performed wisely, or only in a manner that ensures that the road contractors who contribute so heavily to the Mayor's campaign committee have a perpetual steady stream of work to perform.

After this year's bad winter weather, Ballard went to the council and requested $8 million for emergency pothole repairs, even though the Department of Public Works estimated there were at least $24 million in emergency repairs that needed to be undertaken. The council passed the $8 million in funding after re-allocating the funds that were disproportionately allocated to the council members' districts most favored by the Mayor. The council also passed a second proposal that provides the additional $16 million in emergency repairs that DPW said were also needed. Somehow, this gets twisted as a fail on the part of the council by the Star: "But Department of Public Works Director Lori Miser described [the $24 million] as a 'drop in the bucket' of what's needed. Which means several more bumpy days ahead for residents, trapped in the political gridlock."

The Star's John Tuohy doubles down on his misrepresentation of the facts by blaming the failure to approve the $350 million ReBuild Indy II funds for the lack of funds to repair pothole-ridden streets. "A proposal by Republican Mayor Greg Ballard to invest $350 million in infrastructure has languished since last August when the Democrat-controlled City-County Council tabled the plan because of a disagreement about how it was to be funded," Tuohy writes. Again, notice that he pretends the $215 million already available to the Ballard administration for new street repairs without borrowing another dime is simply not there. Tuohy goes on about how Ballard has been holding town hall meetings all over town to garner support for his re-election spending bill, but the Democratic-controlled council just won't budge. Again, the Star is simply writing press releases for the 25th floor. Notice the Star never questions why Ballard wasted millions of ReBuild Indy money on an international sports park where cricket can be played, which was a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. If you want the facts, you will have to look elsewhere for your information because the Star is intent on doing everything it can to misrepresent most local issues of importance.