Doctor Director Straub Should Thank Vernon Brown

I had a source of mine tell me several weeks back that Vernon Brown (D-18th) would be voting to re-confirm Frank Straub as Director of the Department of Public Safety. However, Brown voted against Straub during the Public Safety and Criminal Justice committee meeting. I noted, at the time, that Brown didn't ask a single tough question. Brown did a 180 last night when he voted for Straub in a 16-13 vote.

Brown is a battalion chief for the Indianapolis Fire Department, which falls under the umbrella of the Department of Public Safety. The Chief of the Fire Department, Brian Sanford, showed up at the aforementioned committee meeting and publicly voiced his support for Straub.

To me, that comes across as Brown was voting on behalf of his employer. It wasn't the deciding vote, since two other Democrats joined him. But he should've abstained, especially since the Chief of IFD took a public stance during Straub's confirmation hearing.

Ethical lapses have been vast on the Republican side, and have been the focus of critics of the City-County Council since they have the majority, but the Democrats haven't necessarily become any more ethical since 2007.

Doris Minton-McNeill (15th) was MIA for several weeks in 2009 with no explanation as to her whereabouts after a neighbor alleged that Minton-McNeill was driving erratically and almost hit her daughter. It was later announced at a council meeting that she was receiving medical treatment. During the time that she missed on the council, she sent in a note and informed everyone that she would've abstained from voting on the proposed extended smoking ban. That makes me wonder why she chose to abstain from voting (had she been there).

Jackie Nytes (9th) hasn't been able to keep her name out of the local politicosphere for quite a while, having voted several times against the majority of her own caucus, including this vote to confirm Straub's nomination. Gary Welsh recently discussed, on both his blog and in The Indianapolis Star's "Behind Closed Doors" column, how she might be violating the Little Hatch Act. The act, a federal law, prohibits employers who receive a large amount of federal funds from running for and holding partisan political office. Nytes has decided not to run for re-election, where she was expected to get challenged in the slating process.

I could go on, but I can't spend the rest of my day writing about ethical lapses of the Democrats sitting on the City-County Council.

But what can really be done about it? "Throw the bums out" only seems to give us new bums. I think municipal government here needs a complete overhaul, and I hope to detail what some of my ideas would be by year's end.

Re-cap on Maggie Lewis' Open Forum on the Utility Sale

I attended a public forum hosted by my council representative, Maggie Lewis, last night. José Evans, Monroe Gray, Doris Minton-McNeill, and a number of other council representatives were all in attendance, and Evans seemed to be emceeing the event. Chris Cotterill, Chief of Staff to Mayor Greg Ballard, and Jean Richcreek, Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer for Citizens Energy Group, led the presentation and answered the bulk of questions. Citizens Energy Group also had at least one employee in the audience that fielded a few questions about how Citizens negotiates payments with customers. Ballard came in, unexpectedly, about 30 minutes into the presentation and stayed for 30 minutes, said his bit, and answered questions from council representatives and members of the public. He came in with three other people, one of which was his wife, Winnie Ballard. As you may have noticed, public officials vastly outnumbered the half a dozen or so non-elected/appointed citizens at this meeting.

Nevertheless, Cotterill, Evans, Ballard, and Richcreek ran a tight ship. They got in all questions anyone in the audience had, did so respectfully, and the Power Point presentation wasn't relied on as a script.

Minton-McNeill was grandstanding when Ballard was there and kept going afterward, and I thought it was absolutely shameful. She said that she is still trying to gather information on the utility sale. But these public forums and various hearings have been going on for months. Her comments and questions at the forum made it seem like she hasn't done any research at all. And as I commented during the meeting, it isn't part of my job description to be there, but I did my best to get to these meetings, research, and read. She and any other council representative should do the same, so that the most frequently asked questions don't get asked repeatedly. For example, one of her questions was what if Citizens decides to sell the utilities. According to state law (I'm still researching on a citation for this, so I'm taking others at their word), public trusts can't sell their utilities, and the only way a city can repossess the utilities is if the services aren't being provided.

Fortunately, that wasn't how most council representatives acted. Most were respectful, or at least silent.

I asked Cotterill and the council representatives how exactly the utility sale and the influx of money will be handled in City-County proposals. The answer I got was much different than the definitive answer I got from At-Large Councilor Angela Rivera. Cotterill seemed to be saying that the Council can modify the proposal, but that the vote on the MOU that Prposal 131-2010 is right now will be the only vote. He also said that the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission does not have the ability to modify line-by-line the utility sale, but can just approve it or not approve it.

This was an informative meeting, but I still have a few more questions to ask. I can't quite support this just yet, especially since the process seems to be so uncertain.

You aren't really all that anonymous on the Internet

As someone who writes a blog that nobody reads, I don't get very many comments (it's okay, I don't expect them. Any I do get are a welcome bonus). And those that I do get are usually anonymous.

I make it a point to make sure that I'm never hiding behind a screen name. I publish my Twitter with my real name, have my real name on this account, and comment on various blogs either using the same screen name or linked to my Facebook or Twitter. I don't believe in hiding behind a screen name. I believe that those who exercise their right to free speech should also be able to handle the rights of everyone else to respond to their speech.

So I received an anonymous comment on the short piece I did on Councilor Minton-McNeill, who I believe should resign. It's been 9 weeks and counting since she's done any business on the council, including missing meetings on the city budget and the expanded smoking ordinance. This comment looked to be from some Internet defender of her, but this person is posting these messages elsewhere under the name "Charlie Stewart", as in here.

Mr. Stewart's comment on my blog left no real information to go on and I did not go out and search for his name. I regularly read Indiana Barrister and that entry has gotten a lot of attention.

Mr. Stewart says he is a neighborhood president and, due to the information he claims to know, an insider with Minton-McNeill. Surely he would know that the hush-hush attitude she's been keeping with the public can't be good for her political future. My advice to him: Stop hiding behind anonymous Internet accounts and get your pal to speak up, do the right thing and resign. There's no job in the real world where you can take 9 weeks off with no public explanation and expect to still have it when you get back. Council seats should be no different.

That being said, there are situations where if she has a legitmate reason for being absent, she should keep her seat. But considering Minton-McNeill is not saying ANYTHING, let's just say I have faith in my fellow citizens and I hope she proves me wrong by making her situation public.

Doris Minton-McNeill can't be bothered to do her job

Over at Indiana Barrister, Abdul reported that Minton-McNeill abstained from voting that night. This implies that she was actually there to vote. But she hasn't been at council meetings in a number of weeks, pretty much ever since a run in with a neighbor happened.

But make no mistake, she didn't abstain from voting. She wasn't there. Abdul says in the Comments section that she sent in a note saying she would've abstained from voting if she was there.

Not only could she not be bothered to show up, but if she had, she informed her constituents that she won't take a stand.

Previously in one of her absences, she was reported as receiving treatment of some kind. I fully support anyone who's attempting to get better and have no problem with a public official having a private life. But if that private life intervenes with their job performance, they either need to swiftly deal with the personal issues, or they need to resign. It doesn't matter if they're guilty as sin or innocent as a baby. Public officials should not be skipping their job and (presumably) getting pay checks while dealing with personal issues.

You know, I wouldn't even be that bothered by this if Minton-McNeill has been open about it. But outside of Democrat Party insiders, I doubt anyone knows what's REALLY going on.