Expansion of Protection from Discharge of Weapons On Council Agenda Monday Night

Up for a vote at tomorrow night's City-County Council meeting will be Prop 6.  This proposal, introduced by Councillor Angela Mansfield yet again, would expand to all of Marion County, the prohibition on shooting off guns.  Mansfield added exceptions to the expansion for agriculture-zoned parcel of 10 acres or more, and for shooting ranges of various types.  It is already illegal to shoot off guns within the old City limits and within the excluded cities of Lawrence, Beech Grove and Speedway.

Curiously enough, it is also illegal outside the old City limits and this ordinance would actually carve out the exceptions noted above.  When the IMPD taxing district was expanded so the City could pull in more tax revenue from the outlying Townships, the ban on shooting off guns was also expanded.  Public Safety Director Troy Riggs unilaterally gave everyone outside the old City limits a pass on obeying the law.  I wonder how he gets such authority to decide which ordinances he will enforce and where.

It is well past time that this Ordinance applies to all of us equally.

It is no less startling and threatening to hear gunfire in the perimeter outside old Indy than it is to hear it inside.  Just because the probability of criminal intent is less, does not make it safer or of less concern for nearby residents.

Shooting in one's own backyard, with or with a target, with or without safety training, with or without the intent to intimidate ones neighbors, still can alarm, frighten, and cause concern to those neighbors.  I know from personal experience that when you hear gunfire you cannot assume it is of benign intent.  You cannot assume that errant aim will not harm you or your loved ones.

Hunters pursuing their hobby, sometimes illegally on others' property, don't always know the many directions that prey may take that also leads in a straight line to a house or playground. 

Bullets can travel 1 to 5 miles, depending upon the gun and other variables.  This substantial radius increases the need for Prop 6 to pass.

It is not enough that few people have been seriously injured by hunters and backyard shooters to keep Prop 6 from passing.  Everyone should have the right to enjoy their own property.  When the threat of guns going off keep you and your children from enjoying your own backyard, then the things have gone too far and need to be righted.  

At the Rule Committee meeting where Prop 6 was sent to the full Council by a vote of 4-2, Councillor Bob Lutz said that he generally supported Mansfield's efforts, but would vote against it lest someone take the issue to court based on his interpretation of the wording of a 2011 Indiana law keeping local government from passing any local laws impeding the right to own guns.  Council Attorney, Fred Biesecker, noted that the word 'discharge' of a weapon was deliberately removed from the Indiana law before its passage.  Noone has taken the ban on shooting off guns within the old City limits to Court, and the City has not removed that ban for fear of losing a potential lawsuit in that geography.  It seems like a straw dog to worry about possible legal challenge to a simple expansion of an existing law.

Councillor Christine Scales notes that some Councillors who advocate a 50 foot safety free zone to protect downtown-goers from panhandlers, apparently do not find protecting citizens from stray bullets of any concern.  Scales makes an excellent point.

Loud music from a neighbor can get the police to show up and restore the peace.  Firing off a gun, with its attendant alarm as well as its loud retort, should also elicit action by the police, not just a 'call us when someone is hurt' attitude.  Given Riggs' curious position regarding the enforcement of an existing ordinance, Prop 6 needs to pass so all of us can get the same protections.

Homestead Credit Elimination and Expansion of IPD Tax District On Agenda for Next Admin & Finance Meeting

This Tuesday evening, August 27, the Admin & Finance committee of the City-County Council will consider Props 274 and 275.  Prop 274 would eliminate the local homestead credit on property tax bills, while Prop 275 would expand the old Indianapolis Police Department tax district from the old city limits to the entire Unigov city limits (entire county minus the excluded cities).

There will be another public hearing on Prop 274 at the September 9 full Council meeting.

If you want to attend either, the committee meeting on Tuesday begins at 5:30 pm in room 260 of the City-County Building and the full Council meets in the Public Assembly room, 2nd floor of the City-County Building, beginning at 7 pm.

Chair of the Admin & Finance committee, Angela Mansfield, confirms they anticipate taking testimony and voting on both proposals on Tuesday.

Email Eavesdropping - RE: Cricket

Tomorrow the Board of Public Works  will consider letting a $2.5 million contract for the proposed Gaelic Sports Park (aka Cricket fields, aka World Sports Park) using RebuildIndy money.

Here is an email exchange that began with Councillor Zach Adamson appealing to the members of the Board of Public Works .  I have to say, it is good to see our Councillors stand up for reasonable use of taxpayer funds in this way.

***

Councillor Adamson to Public Works Board:

Dear Members of the Public Works Board.

I am writing to you today to ask you to vote against the awarding of the contract for the Global Sports Complex with the use of Rebuild Indy funds. I believe this to be an illegitimate use of these funds.  

I do understand the need for city leaders to be ambitious, forward thinking and visionary. That being said,  there’s a difference between being visionary and delusional. The possibility of any real return on this investment is questionable at best, especially in light of news from the city  in Florida who already has such a Cricket Complex and their regrets for investing in it.  

And ultimately, these funds are deliberately set aside for addressing the multi million dollar back log of failing infrastructure across our city. This is NOT what these funds are for.  

Thank you in advance for your serious consideration of a NO vote on the use of RebuildIndy Funds for this purpose and thank you for your service to our fine city.  

Warmest Regards,  

Zach Adamson, Councillor, At-Large
 

Reply from Mayoral appointtee to the Board of Public Works, Dennis Rosebrough:

Good morning Councilor. Thanks for sharing your opinion. Improving parks infrastructure seems to be an appropriate use of the funds. At the end of the project, we end up with first class athletic fields that can be used for many activities including soccer, lacrosse and other games that require fields. The design does not preclude any use including cricket or Gaelic sports. In the worst case scenario, we end up with a beautiful, multi-functional recreational facility on the east side of the city that can be used by young and old.  It could also become a regional center for emerging sports like cricket and draw thousands of people to our community in the future.  

There were those who thought a domed stadium addition to the Convention Center was foolish and that even involved a new tax. As a member of the PR group for the that project, we heard all of the arguments. With Mayor Hudnut’s and the City-Council’s bold vision, it was built - and as they say, “the rest is history.”  Obviously, this project is not even in the same league (maybe $5 million cost and no tax impact vs. $50 million and a new tax), but it does represent a “vision” for our community. I will proudly continue to support this project.  

Dennis L. Rosebrough  

Deputy Commissioner - External Affairs 

Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles
 

Comment back from Adamson to Rosebrough:

Mr. Rosebrough, 

You’re flowery words about this Complex are small consolation to the dozens of people who have been hit by cars and killed in our city because they lack sidewalks to connect them to needed resources, just in this last year alone. I’m sure the communities across our city who have been waiting for major repairs on their streets for decades will be equally unmoved by your embrace for this Complex at their expense.  

I am by no means opposed to the Complex itself and if we could afford it, I’d be excited to hear about it. However, you might not have heard, the city has both a multi million dollar budget shortfall and several hundred million dollars in backlogged infrastructure needs. Needs the RebuildIndy Funds were deliberately created for. This investment is not for repair or stabilization of an existing park. It is for a whole new repurposing of an existing park. One that is not in need of repair.  

I hope when you cast your shortsighted vote in support of this inappropriate use of the RBI funds, you’ll also include a message to all the folks who will not see the needed infrastructure repairs because these funds were diverted. Perhaps, the best thing for me to do at this time is to publish your email reply and include your email so my constituents will be able to send YOU their cries for needed infrastructure. I’m sure they’ll be thrilled to hear from you and I’m sure you’ll be able to pacify them with the grand vision of the new Cricket Stadium.  

Since you took the liberty to include Mr Lotter in your reply to me, clearly so you could earn good graces with the mayor, I’m including the other councillors in this reply so they might know what to tell their constituents when they call or they read in the newspaper about yet another grandmother, cyclist or child is killed while trying to pass down a busy street with no sidewalk or shoulder.  

Again, my warmest regards.

Zach Adamson, Councillor, At-Large
 

Hitting the reply to all button, Councillor Angela Mansfield added her point of view:

I concur with Councillor Adamson's statements.  Using Rebuild Indy funds for this purpose is absolutely wasteful!  These funds were raised on the backs of our rate payer constituents and the funds should go back to our neighborhoods. We need sidewalks for every day use for safe transportation to grocery stores, drug stores, jobs, schools, religious institutions, etc. The sidewalks would also provide an opportunity for many to exercise and create a connected community. Building a cricket field for just a few is not only shortsighted given our budget constraints, it is completely delusional.

And, chiming in on the conversation we have this from Councillor Frank Mascari:

I also agree with councilor Adamson. We in Indianapolis have more issues at hand then a sports park.  

Frank Mascari  

City Council District 20

Results From Last Night's Council Meeting

Others reported much of this last night - see Gary Welsh over at Advance Indiana's first and second post, and Jon Murray at the IndyStar.

First, Prop 54, which was to be both introduced and heard last night, was instead sent to committee for a hearing, as is the usual procedure.  It has been assigned to the Rules committee, which will take the matter up at its March 12 meeting.  Many thanks to Council Clerk, NaTrina Debow for that information.  Prop 54 seeks to split the proceeds from the two new tax hikes between the CIB and the City (links to prop 54 and exhibit of the agreement between the CIB and OFM).

Second, Prop 48, which seeks to change the organization responsible for administering the Crime Prevention grants from the Indy Parks Foundation to the Central Indiana Community Foundation, was pulled from the agenda entirely.  Both this blog and Advance Indiana commented on the conflict of interest resulting from Council President Maggie Lewis being both the sponsor of this proposal and Executive Director of a grant recipient organization.

Third, Prop 33, which seeks to apply $3 million from RebuildIndy funds toward infrastructure improvements in the Meadows/Avondale area with the ultimate goal of enticing a grocery store to locate in the area, failed to muster a majority vote either for or against.  Democrat Vop Osili and Republican Ben Hunter were absent from the meeting.  The vote was 14 for and 13 against Prop 33.  Democrat Angela Mansfield joined all the Republican Councillors in opposing the proposal.  Since there was no majority, the Proposal is still alive and can be voted upon again at the next full Council meeting, February 25.

Big Night At Rules Committee

The City-County Council Rules Committee will be taking up some big issues tonight, including partner benefits for City/County employees, and an ordinance banning blackballing of hotel workers who preveiusly worked for a temp agency. 

While most people attending will be interested in one of those two, I do want to make mention of an additional proposal that,if passed, would seek a half million loan from the state and then increase your taxes in 2013 to pay it back.  Hmmm...
Prop 168 does not say what purpose the half million would serve, just that it would be deposited in the City's Cumulative Capital Development Fund.  According to the budget for 2012, this fund was estimated to have over $3.7 million fund balance at the end of this year.  They used this fund to handle some of the property tax circuit breaker credits, eating into the over $8.8 million beginning balance. (see p 82 and 33 of the pdf) So why they need to feed this fund with a loan and add to our taxes next year is not clear.

Prop 179, sponsored by Councillor Brian Mahern, would establish a new requirement for a hotel to qualify for its annual operating license from the City.  No hotel would be able to enter into a services contract if that contract contained a stipulation that the hotel could not employ a person who had previously worked for the services agency.  This practice traps people in the employ of these temporary agencies and their attendant low wages with no benefits.  The hotels were quite happy to hide behind the skirts of the maids and other hotel workers in petitioning for more and more taxpayer funds to flow to the ICVA and the CIB - then unceremoniously cut these workers' jobs in favor of these black-hearted outsourcing agreements.
Prop 213, sponsored by Councillors Mansfield, Adamson, Barth, Hickman, Lutz and Hunter, would make various benefits available to City and County government employees who are in domestic partnerships. To qualify, the couple would have to be living together for at least one year and file a Domestic Partnership declaration the Human Resources.  The benefits provided to the partner would be the same as those now afforded to a spouse of an employee - such as health insurance and pension benefits - and family/medical leave would be provided to the employee for situations arising with their partner.  Should the domestic partners cease being a couple, HR would have to be notified immediately.  All benefits provided to a partner would be taxable to the employee.

On Prop 213, all I can say is - about time.  The State refuses to allow same sex partners to marry, stripping these couples of many legal rights married couples take for granted.  The least we can be as a City is progressive enough to provide equal benefits for partners as we provide to spouses.

The agenda for the Rules Committee lists 8 items.  The meeting will begin at 5:30 pm in the Public Assembly Room.

Ill-Composed Rules Committee To Hear Smoking Ban Proposal

Tonight's meeting of the Democrat-stuffed Rules committee (see "Democrat's Power Grab Belies Words Of Interest In Cooperation") will consider Councillor Mansfield's version of an extension of Indy's smoking ban, contained in Prop 18.  You will recall that Democrats killed a similar measure that was introduced late last year by then Council President Ryan Vaughn.  The difference, we are told, hinges on letting minors into private clubs that vote to keep smoking, but in a separate room.

Today's Indy Star has an editorial penned by Richard Feldman, M.D., who spoke somberly and pragmatically about passing what can be passed, even though glaringly flawed.

Now that the Ds can claim credit, their version will likely get enough votes to move to Mayor Ballard's desk.  The real question is, will it be in a form that he is likely to sign.  The Ds have squandered all moral high ground to challenge Ballard should he refrain from agreeing with the contents.

The Rules committee meets at 5:30 in the Public Assembly Room of the City-County Building.

The Council Democrats Are Blowing It

The Council's Democratic Caucus is blowing it big time, and the impact of their posture on the proposed expansion of the smoking ban is wide ranging.

The epicenter of all this is the expansion of the smoking ban proposed by Council President Ryan Vaughn, due to be heard at tonight's Rules committee meeting.  It is not Vaughn's actions, however, it is the reaction of Council Democrats to Vaughn that is causing the image of their Caucus to take a hit.

Democrats are wary, at best, regarding Vaughn's motives, and with good reason.  Still, his eleventh hour proposal is a significant improvement to existing public policy, has the best shot in years of passage and is sure to be signed by Mayor Ballard.  The Indianapolis Star, in its editorial on December 6, described the Democrats' response in juvenile terms, saying

...when your opponents give you 98 percent of what you want, it's politically unwise and even petty to pout over the 2 percent you didn't get. Yet, that's exactly what's happening in the debate over a comprehensive workplace smoking ban.

Councillor Angela Mansfield, whose reputation has been one of an intelligent, thoughtful Councillor, is taking a hit from what appears to be petulance on being one-upped by Vaughn.  She must know that Vaughn is saving the Mayor the major embarrassment of vetoing a proposal to be introduced next year that would not exclude fraternal clubs and organizations.  But she also must know that her hard work on a proposal that could pass the Council with the newly added Democratic votes, is likely to be vetoed by Ballard - ending her hopes to expand the smoking ban yet again.

Councillor Joanne Sanders is echoing Mansfield in telling the press that she will not promote Vaughn's proposal within the Caucus.

As the Star put it, just declare victory and move on.

The action of these prominent players in the Council's Democratic Caucus is not only jeopardizing good, if not perfect, public policy in terms of a smoking ban for Indianapolis.  Should the public impression not be improved, and quickly, it also will have these additional points of impact:

1) It takes the limelight away from Vaughn's push to adopt new Council districts in advance of a Democratic majority taking over the Council come January.  You cannot simultaneously pose as the adult in the room and act in ways that garner the use of the word "pout" by the City's largest newspaper.

2) It affects the public perception of how seriously the new Council will take important issues that arise next year and after.

3) It also removes from Mayor Greg Ballard, the stigma of being unable to work across the aisle with Democrats.  The Democrats are now seen in an unfavorable, unreasonable light, due to their own words and actions; lightening any pressure Ballard may have received from the public to cooperate.  Now, any fault for a paralyzed government will not be assigned solely to Ballard, but to the Council Democratic Caucus in equal measure.
 
The Democrats have little time to turn their actions and the public's perception of their motives around.  The Caucus should have been able to celebrate the changing of the guard on January 1.  Instead they have to make it clear that the public interest is their interest and fix the response to the Vaughn smoking ban proposal with all haste.

Fundamental Fridays

Please bear with me before you start groaning with derision.

It seems to me that there are fundamental aspects to good government and good governance.  Open, transparent, accessible government - for instance.  Working in the best interest of the community, not special interests - for instance.  Good stewardship, leadership, vision - for instance.

It also seems to me that there are folks who serve in our local government who demonstrate a fundamental aspect of good government on a daily basis, and others who do so from time to time.

Dare I say it so clearly but -- not all is wrong with our local governance.

So, in order to promote it when I see it, I am instituting a new feature to Had Enough Indy ?  It will be an award worth the paper it is written on.  I'll call it the Fundamental Friday Award - or "Fundy" for short.

The inaugural Fundy (drum roll, please) goes to Councillors Angela Mansfield, Ben Hunter, and Ryan Vaughn, and Mayor Greg Ballard.  The reason is - compromise when compromise will bring about benefits to the community.  In years gone by we might have called it statesmanship - putting the needs of the people before party politics or grandstanding opportunities.

The topic involved is, as you already know, the enlargement of Indy's smoking ban that will still fall short, but not far short, of a complete ban.  However, it will be as close as all sides can get if they hope to garner enough votes for passage and to win the Mayor's signature.

Mansfield and Hunter have been working together, across the political aisle, for years now, trying to move the smoking ban forward.  They were ready to reintroduce a previously defeated measure once the Democrats took control of the Council in January, but a measure unlikely to be signed by the Mayor.  Vaughn threw a Hail Mary pass in the last minutes of Republican control; likely to give Mayor Ballard something he could stomach and sign, saving him face.  Nonetheless, they all came together and are now lending their support to an slightly more aggressive Vaughn measure.

So, include the coming together to work for the benefit of the public, to the art of compromise when compromise will bring benefits to the community, as the reasons why the very first Fundy goes to Mansfield, Hunter, Vaughn, and Ballard.

Seeds of Hope

Jon Murray, Indy Star reporter, has another good article in today's paper about the drama over competing expansions of Indy's smoking ban.  See "Smoking ban gets unlikely support" for the entire piece.

What could have shaped up as a lose-lose head butting contest, may instead hold the seeds of hope for working government in Indianapolis.

As noted two days ago, there are two competing proposals - one to be introduced by Council President Ryan Vaughn at the next Council meeting, and one to be introduced by Councillors Angela Mansfield and Ben Hunter in January, after the Democrats gain control of the Council.  Both would bring significant enhancement to the current smoking ban, extending the ban to all bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and other public gathering places.  Vaughn's proposal would continue to exempt private organizations, tobacco shops and tobacco bars.  The Mansfield / Hunter proposal would exempt only tobacco shops.

As Murray writes:

Anti-smoking advocacy group Smoke Free Indy, which backs only the comprehensive plan [Mansfield / Hunter] so far, estimates 370 bars and other establishments still allow smoking. Most likely would be covered under an expanded ban.

By the group's count, Vaughn's proposal would exclude about 60 from the smoking ban: nearly 20 cigar and hookah bars, five retail tobacco shops, and 35 nonprofit private organizations, including country clubs, social clubs, fraternal organizations and veterans halls.

Only the retail tobacco shops would be exempted by the proposal outlined by council members Angela Mansfield, a Democrat, and Ben Hunter, a Republican.

The rub is, Vaughn can get his ordinance signed by Mayor Ballard, but may not get enough Democrat votes to get out of the Council and on to Ballard's desk.  The Mansfield / Hunter proposal could be passed by the Council, but is not likely to be signed by Ballard - and they likely don't have the votes to overturn a veto.

So, the upshot of it all could very well be that nothing gets done by those who agree on an extension of the ban to cover about 310 of the approximately 370 locations that currently allow smoking.

However, Murray's article contains the seeds of hope, not only for a more comprehensive smoking ban in Indianapolis, but also as a harbinger of working government for the next 4 years.

Mansfield expressed hope that Ballard would sit down with her and Hunter "to see exactly where he is on the issue." Marc Lotter, Ballard's spokesman, said such a meeting shouldn't be a problem in coming weeks, as long as Vaughn also is at the table.
****
"We're both open to compromise," Hunter said. "We'll look at (Vaughn's) language when we get it in the next 24 to 48 hours."
****
Mansfield, Hunter and Vaughn all say they want to rid bars of smoking before Super Bowl activities begin in late January, but Mansfield amended that goal Thursday: "I'd much rather see a good, comprehensive proposal in place, even if it's after the Super Bowl."

Vaughn said earlier this week that timing was the reason for his surprise push. He sees a requirement for a period of published notice as a stumbling block before the Super Bowl. Mansfield disagrees that it would be.

But Vaughn said supporters of a more comprehensive ban should support his proposal as an "interim step."

[edited to correct mistake in original Star posting]

How To Argue About Something You Agree On

The morning paper (and last night's Ogden on Politics) has a story about Council President Ryan Vaughn's intention to offer enhancements to the current smoking ban in Indianapolis.   (see "Bars could be smoke-free soon" by Star reporters Jon Murray and Shari Rudavsky, and Paul Ogden's "Indianapolis' Mayor Ballard, (Some) Council Republicans To Throw Bar Owners Under the Bus In Expanded Smoking Ban")

Instead of ushering in a spirit of cordiality and bipartisanship, which one could have hoped would be the tone for next year's split party governance, it appears to be the first volley in party warfare.  Hopefully I am way off the mark and cooler heads will prevail.

At its core is the intention of many to have a full or nearly full ban on smoking in Indianapolis - tightening up the law passed in 2005.

The Democrats have more Councillors, both on and soon to join the Council, in favor of a stricter ban than do the Republicans.  According to Councillor Angela Mansfield, she would have a veto proof 18 votes in favor of a ban come January.  Mansfield is working again with Republican Ben Hunter to craft a stricter ban than they were able to get passed previously.

Neither the Mansfield/ Hunter plan nor the Vaughn plan are available for public review.   I am not sure that Mansfield's proposal would be a 100% ban, either, but, according to the Star, Vaughn's proposal would :

In addition to bars and bowling alleys, Vaughn says, his proposal would ban smoking in hotel rooms as well as restaurants that slipped through the current law by allowing only patrons who are 18 or older.


His proposal would exempt cigar and hookah bars -- newly defined as "tobacco specialty bars" based on sales -- as well as retail tobacco stores and nonprofit fraternal organizations, including veterans' halls.

Vaughn says his plan has the virtue of the backing of Mayor Ballard, and an earlier passage date which would be in keeping with state law notification time requirements on enacting laws that impose penalties.  Mansfield sites her 18 votes and says the penalties were contained in the 2005 ordinance and are therefore not subject to another time limit.

I understand the all or nothing approach of Smoke Free Indy, but this is the Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council.  Passage of the weaker Vaughn proposal may wipe out some of the 18 votes Mansfield would need to veto proof additional expansion of the smoking ban in January, and if that happened, Vaughn's weaker proposal would stand for some time to come.  But, if Vaughn's approach is satisfactory to some of Mansfield's 18 votes, then how solid is her support in reality?

One aim is to have a ban in place by the Super Bowl, in order to leave a more progressive impression with visitors.  Even if Mansfield's interpretation is ultimately correct, an appeal to the Courts could delay any proposal passed in January while the Court considers the validity of the challenge.  A long term outlook for the health of bar workers would continue to be satisfied, but the opportunity some see in marketing Indy could be lost.

At some point, the new Council and the Mayor will either have to learn to talk and consider compromises that move our City forward, or we will have 4 years of gridlock.

[edited to add: My mistake, 18 votes is not veto-proof.  According to the Indianapolis Code, a 2/3 majority is needed to override a veto.  That calculates to 19.33 votes required - so I assume 20 are in reality required to override.  This makes discussion by the Council and Mayor even more imperative.  On a smoking ban, even if Mansfield can get all 16 Ds and Ben Hunter, Ryan Vaughn, and Mike McQuillen to vote for her proposal, it would not be enough votes to overturn a Ballard veto.]

Councillor Mansfield Files Ethic Complaint Against Councillor Plowman

Councillor Angela Mansfield has filed an ethics complaint that asks Councillor Lincoln Plowman to disclose the reasons revolving around his investigation, or take a leave of absence until the issues are resolved.

Here is how WTHR is reporting Mansfield's complaint:

A ethics complaint has been filed against City-County Council member Lincoln Plowman.

The complaint, filed by councilor Angela Mansfield, is seeking the same thing many people have been asking for weeks. What is the nature of the investigation and does it involve any of his dealings as a police officer, or his duties on the City-County Council.

Eyewitness News sources have indicated that Plowman is resigning his seat on the council and position with IMPD on Monday. Because of the investigation, IMPD put Plowman on paid administrative leave on February 3.

Many on the council are concerned that any future involvement in council matters by Plowman could cause legal issues down the road.

"I asked, 'Can Lincoln disclose what it is?' It is not a situation like a grand jury, where the is confidentiality and they said, 'Absolutely, if he chooses to disclose, he can'," Mansfield said. "The other thing I think is interesting is, it was explained to me that the agency that is doing the investigation will neither confirm or deny that there is an investigation, which led me to believe it is not an internal investigation."

The complaint is asking Plowman to either disclose the nature and circumstances of the investigation, or take a leave of absence until the investigation is complete.

I think Councillor Mansfield has struck the right note here - finding a compromise position between Councillor Plowman's rights to due process and the rights of the community to have confidence in the actions of the Council.

Council Action - Last Week and This

This week we should have a really interesting meeting of the Rules and Public Policy committee of the City-County Council. I also want to backtrack to the full Council meeting a week ago and give you the vote on the smoking ban.

The Rules committee will meet this Wednesday evening at 5:30 pm in room 260 of the City-County Building. Two items are on the agenda. Finally coming to a hearing is Prop 303, authored by Councillor Ed Coleman. As mention in an earlier entry, this proposal would require all contracts with the City-County government be posted online within 7 days of being signed. This is a good step forward in convenient public access to information. I know I will be watching this vote very closely.

Also on this agenda is Prop 378 - the FedEx resolution - which was returned to committee at the last full Council meeting. This proposal, too, was discussed earlier. In short, the union trade rules that FedEx has been living under because of a special inclusion in the law, is now being taken from them under the current language of the "FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009". FedEx would like the Council to back its efforts to have that language removed. The nut of the issue is that FedEx employees must now unionize as a single, national union and act only if all agree. If FedEx were stripped of its special protection by the Railway Labor Act, and placed under the National Labor Relations Act like its competitor UPS is, then the employees could unionize by trade and by location, giving them more flexibility in organizing and negotiations. Whatever your view of unions, the rules for unionizing should be uniform and this resolution strays mightily in suggesting that making FedEx play by the same rules as UPS will cause layoffs here in Indy. In any case, the Rules committee has it back for renewed consideration.

The last full Council meeting did have a vote on the smoking ban. For full disclosure, I don't honestly know how I would have voted were I in the Councillors' seats. I find I fall into an internal debate between the rights of individuals to conduct a legal activity that has been the social norm for generations, the rights of individuals to find employment in smoke-free environments, and the acknowledgement that this is the path that freeing citizens from the toxins in cigarettes is and will be taking - one community at a time opting to narrow the places one can legally smoke. As a scientist I am very concerned about promoting data that any non-smoker who comes down with lung cancer must have been victim of second hand smoke and not IPL's downtown high-sulfur coal plant, or smog, or particulate release from urban mining operations. I don't want a spot on that bandwagon. But, nonetheless, smoking cigarettes will not be made illegal. Thus efforts to minimize smoking and its health risks to smokers will follow this now well worn path. For me the final question is not how Indy will reduce smoking, but when is the right time?

Enough about me. We all know, thanks to Matt Tully's column, that Mayor Ballard ducked that leadership thing once again and chose to do his best Boss Hog impersonation by appearing at the Republican caucus meeting prior to the Council meeting and let them know he did not want this ordinance to appear on his desk. No ordinance - no disclosure of a position - no harm to a reelection effort. No leadership. (I'd provide a link to Tully's column but its not available at IndyStar.com for some reason. Instead here's a link to Gary Welsh's Advance Indiana piece with an embedded link that may get reactivated some day.) Francesca Jarosz' Star piece, published 2 days prior to Tully's piece, which describes the Council's debate is still available on their website.

Here's how the Councillors voted on the smoking ban, Prop 371 : Yes (12) Republicans Hunter, Malone, Smith, and Vaughn, joined Democrats Bateman, Evans, Lewis , B. Mahern, Mansfield, Moriarty, Nytes, and Sanders. No (13) Libertarian Coleman and Democrats Brown and Oliver, joined Republicans Cain, Cardwell, Cockrum, Day, Lutz, McHenry, McQuillen, Plowman, Scales, and Speedy. Democrats D. Mahern and Gray abstained from the vote and Councillors Minton-McNeill and Pfisterer were absent all night. The vote failed.

While one cannot know how the Republicans would have voted had Mayor Ballard not instructed them not to let it get to his desk, one does have to wonder. And, one has to wonder whether any of the Councillors believe they have a duty as separately elected officials to act separately from their party and separately from the reelection efforts of the Mayor of the same party.

I do want to thank Councillors Hunter and Mansfield for authoring Prop 371 and Councillors Evans and Malone for signing on to it. A smoking ban is a discussion this community needs to have. And we will have it again because this is the path down which smoking in Indy will be curtailed. The only question is when.