A Candid Discussion on Education Reform

For those who haven't seen this, I squared off on Fox 59 over education reform last week with Josh Gillespie, Hoosier Access's chief blogger and Dan Burton staffer. You always get edited for TV, but it still captures some of my sentiments.



The part that got edited was me saying that if we wanted to improve education for everyone, and we truly believed teachers were the difference-makers, we'd do whatever it took to get the best teachers in the worst classrooms, which would benefit entire schools instead of giving a fraction of students the opportunity to leave for something "better."

I concede that I am wrenched by this question: who am I as a white professional to tell a single, working-class, African-American mother to keep her child in a crappy school just because she doesn't have the money for private school tuition?

But we have to acknowledge that, in many cases, certain schools and systems thrive, not because their administrators and teachers discovered the mystical formula for educational achievement. It's because the schools are populated with kids whose parents are two-income, high achievers who reinforce the value of educational attainment by modeling it. In short, when people move to Fishers for the schools, it's not because Fishers does it so uniquely; the parents are buying an educational peer group based on social class. In fact, in that kind of school, if you have one or two kids who act up, the peer pressure will likely make those two kids conform to the norm of caring about learning.

In contrast, if you have a classroom with a lot of kids from dysfunctional families, kids who have no help at home because either parents aren't available because of insane work schedules, or they don't have the knowledge or inclination, you're likely to get more classroom disruptions, which makes it harder for the children to learn.

You think I'm wrong? Then why does IPS have the highest-ranked school in the entire state on ISTEP scores, even with its top-heavy administration and its allegedly overly-friendly union contracts? Here's why. Because the Merle Sidener Gifted Academy is a magnet school of talented students, meaning that when you put kids who want to learn under one roof, IPS smokes everybody. The problem is that IPS doesn't have enough of these kids to populate every school. Carmel Clay does.

If somebody in Fishers or Carmel thinks I'm wrong, let's do an experiment. Give me the four best teachers in a given elementary school, and I'll send you sixty students who are tragically below ISTEP levels from a Marion County suburban schools and from IPS. Your designated teachers switch out 15 student in their class for 15 of mine. In six months, let's see if the Marion County students have improved, or if those students are the same or worse while the Fishers students have lost ground.

You might say, "Oh, we'd never get sixty new students into our best school because there are already too many students from the neighborhood," to which I'd respond, "There's your voucher program - take just enough to not tip the dynamics of the class, but not enough to give everybody an equal shot at 'quality' education."

What Republicans want to do with vouchers is reinforce a vicious cycle by taking money out of schools that need it the most because its teachers have the most difficult jobs. Do I think IPS could cut some of its 170-plus administrators with $100,000+ salaries? Absolutely. But I doubt that would be enough to recruit the "great" teachers from other school systems, which is what needs to happen.

If Republicans were serious about reform, they'd try to show us all that charters and voucher systems work by passing a law that says if they get the right to do this, they would guarantee existing funding levels plus annual increases to offset inflation for existing schools. I'd let them do their experiment if it didn't cost existing schools. Then they could say, "Look! We told you we'd outperform you!" They won't do that, of course, because charters have mixed records, and they aren't interested in investing more in education.

Or how about this. You get pro-voucher philanthropists to donate to an endowment for a new charter school, and instead of selecting from a lottery system, you select from the poorest ISTEP performers in Marion county. After a year, if a majority of the students haven't improved by 25%, the endowment is forfeited to IPS's worst school with a restriction that the money can ONLY go to acquire new teachers. Will somebody put their money with their mouth is if the student body isn't self-selecting based on a higher degree of parental involvement (which in most cases means higher achievement anyway)? I bet not.

This whole GOP model is upside down. If I had run the Colts back when they were terrible in the 1980s, would I have said, "Hey, fans! Sorry we're terrible. Take your money and watch the Bengals!" No. I'd have opened up my checkbook and paid big money for a free agent or a 1st-round draft choice known as Peyton Manning (who the Colts got by BEING terrible, by the way), and I'd use the new talent to right the ship.

I haven't heard of anybody in either political party who looked at the ISTEP scores, graduation rates, and drop-out rates in this state without concluding that a lot of our schools are sinking ships. But here lies the difference: Republicans want to get a select few "passengers" to the lifeboats. Democrats are trying to save everybody.

A Candid Discussion on Education Reform

Lugar Shows Richard Mourdock and Mike Delph the Uphill Climb

According to the blog of Wish-TV political guru, Jim Shella, Indiana's senior senator, Richard Lugar, has a poll that shows he has the highest favorable rating (66%) among Hoosier Republican politicians, including Governor Mitch Daniels (59%).

Shella writes, "Curiously, Lugar included potential primary challengers Richard Mourdock and Mike Delph in the poll. Mourdock is at 14% and Delph is at 7%."

There's nothing curious about including Mourdock and Delph. It's ingenious politics. You know who responds to polls? The "smart money crowd" (a/k/a lobbyists, interest groups, and party officials who don't want to get frozen out if they support a Lugar opponent and lose).

A well-known political maxim is that if you shoot at the king, you better kill him. Lugar is trying to show he's bullet-proof. And given that Lugar has an underwhelming $2.3 million in the bank with only two years to go, scaring the smart money into his column before one of his prospective opponents can get traction is critical.

I'm probably in the minority on this, but I think Lugar could be in jeopardy unless the GOP plays nice in 2012. In a general election? Without question, Lugar could still dominate.

But what if we see a GOP primary fight between Congressman Mike Pence and Lieutenant Governor Becky Skillman? Pence would fuel a high-octane cultural conservative/Tea Party turnout, and Lugar's statesmanship, outspoken role in nuclear anti-proliferation (and castigation of his own party for not getting on board), and occasional kind word toward the President make him too internationalist and soft for the Pence constituency.

If such a showdown in the Guv's race were to materialize, and Lugar were to square off with only one primary opponent, he could be doomed. The "only one opponent" piece is crucial though. The Indiana GOP has already showed it was in the market for something new when it only gave Dan "Sugar" Coats thirty-nine percent of the vote. Had Marlin Stutzman not been in a four-way field, he'd be a senator, not a representative. Any more than one opponent, and Lugar is a shoe-in.

The key to Lugar's survivability will be his next two years of voting. If he doesn't placate the neocons and deficit hawks in his own party, they'll be eager to trade in for a newer, more idealogically-pure model. Lugar would be eighty in 2012.

Lugar Shows Richard Mourdock and Mike Delph the Uphill Climb

iPOPA Questions Governor Daniels on His Definition of Private Sector Job Creation

Dear Governor Daniels:

Speaking as a Hoosier, I guess I'd agree that the existence of a Hoosier job today that didn't exist yesterday is a good thing, so I don't mean to nitpick.

But I have a hard time with intellectual dishonesty, so when the Indianapolis Star reported today your announcement on the "creation" of 2,650 jobs, I was plagued by skepticism.

As you know, you announced that Indiana was benefitting from a 650-worker locomotive factory to be opened by Progress Rail Services, a 500-job service center for Ascension Health, and another 650 jobs at student loan firm Sallie Mae and call-center operator Affiliated Computer Services (ACS). This was in addition to the 850 jobs you announced earlier in the week to be created by two other companies.

Don't take offense, Governor, but given that these jobs are to be "created" over five years, can you tell how many will actually ever exist? I ask because you've held some press conferences next to CEOs who've made grandiose promises they never kept.

Remember when WTHR-13 in Indianapolis went to find the jobs you "created" and instead found a bunch of empty warehouses and cornfields? You must have been so embarrassed that we Hoosiers had been double-crossed! I suppose, however, that the sting didn't linger for you as much as for us since at least you got to use all those bogus job announcements to get re-elected.

Maybe being there in person to hear Progress Rail CEO Billy Ainsworth's inflection makes a difference, but he sure didn't sound all systems go when he said, "If the economy picks up and demand picks up, we'll go to full production."

Also, given your gift for political theater, I hope you will forgive me for thinking you knew long before Friday that these companies were going to "create" jobs, but you consolidated and held the announcements until a week before the election to achieve maximum political effect.

Speaking of political effect, what a great quote you gave! You nearly dislocated your shoulder patting yourself on the back when you said, "Weeks like this remind us that Indiana is a leader in private-sector jobs creation because we've built the best sandbox for business."

Governor, initially I wondering why nobody told you that Ascension Health is a not-for-profit entity. Then it occurred to me that you conservatives probably just lump not-for-profit job growth into the "private sector" since at least it isn't "government employment"?

But more importantly, Governor, is it really fair to say Indiana "created" jobs in cases like with Sallie Mae where the 350 new Indiana slots are the result of 2,000 people losing their jobs in other states? If we employed your logic, wouldn't India be "creating" more American jobs than any state in the union? When a company like Sallie Mae moves its workforce, maybe we should brag that Indiana not only has a great sandbox, it also is extremely skilled at picking up crumbling pieces from companies in other states before their inevitable departure overseas?

Oh, I also noticed you said ACS, the vendor who served as a subcontractor for IBM on your massive welfare automation boondoggle is going to add 300 jobs? Out of curiosity, if IBM sues ACS as a party in the lawsuit the State of Indiana has against IBM, will you have to treat ACS with kid gloves in the litigation to get the jobs? Also, are these 300 ACS jobs dependent on a parking deal, by chance? I know the Mayor of Indianapolis said that his colossally crappy 50-year parking lease would create 200 jobs. Tell me you aren't counting those chickens because I'm thinking they might not hatch.

Finally, Governor, I was under the impression you hated President Obama's stimulus package because you said it wasn't creating private sector jobs. Did I hear that right? If so, you must have been hating life when you announced that Abound Solar Manufacturing was creating twelve hundred manufacturing jobs making state-of-the-art solar panels in an abandoned Getrag facility in Tipton County? Maybe you saw in Time that there's been a whole new economy created by the stimulus?

Maybe if you'd spent less time on your anti-stimulus national posturing, we could have landed more Abounds and become renowned for our new energy economy. (Dude, green is right up your alley - that was the color of your campaign t-shirts!) But, hey, I'm sure it's hard to bash a stimulus package when you have to keep announcing jobs created by it, so I understand why you hung back.

Thanks for listening!

iPOPA Questions Governor Daniels on His Definition of Private Sector Job Creation

Rokita Creates New Reaganesque Mantra: "Never Release an Investigation Into a Fellow Republican (Charlie White) Ten Days Before Election Day!"

No matter how occupied my life becomes, there are times I am so troubled, I feel compelled to stay up into the wee hours of the night to speak.

This is such a time.

I learned today that Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita (political science major, Wabash College, Class of 1992) completed his investigation into possible vote fraud by GOP Secretary of State candidate Charlie White (political science major, Wabash College, Class of 1992), but he refuses to make his findings public.

As has been well-chronicled by Brian Howey here and by the Associated Press here, Charlie kept taking money as a Fishers Town Council member, though he certainly knew he no longer lived in the district he represented. (He was five miles over the line).

In addition, White voted in a precinct in which he knew, or certainly should have known, he was not eligible to vote.

All of this has culminated in the appointment of two special prosecutors - one Democrat and one Republican. Of course, there will be no way the duo completes their work before election day.

Cue Rokita to center stage.

Given that Rokita's reputation was built on his alleged fervor for upholding the integrity of Indiana's voting laws, when Indiana Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker asked for an investigation, Rokita had to oblige.

I was skeptical. After all, in addition to running in the same political circles, according to Charlie White's most recent campaign finance report, Rokita’s campaign committee paid $717 for refreshments for a July 15, 2010 fundraiser for Charlie. (Curiously, Rokita's report covering all activity from July 1, 2010 through September 30, 2010, shows no such donation).

However, I (political science major, Wabash College, class of 1992) have known Rokita for a long time, and I thought maybe, just maybe, he would employ some integrity, make a recommendation to the prosecutors, and support it with what he uncovered.

He did neither.

And here is a sad reality. I was lab partners with Charlie White and lived in the same dorm he did at Wabash, and there were times I found him to be a really good guy. But if I put aside my personal relationship, I can honestly say that nobody who did what Charlie did would ever get my vote for this office. And if Charlie wins, it will be only because his opponent's name is Vop Osili.

The hardest thing to do in politics is look at people you are either fond of or friends with and tell them they have acted improperly and will have to suffer the consequences. It takes grit. It takes character. It takes cajones of steel (or diamond ovaries, for the ladies) because when the stakes are high, your own party will employ political pressure that feels like vice grips and ice picks.

Rokita's mettle got tested, and he folded like aluminum foil. His office released a statement today saying it had reviewed only public records, subpoenaed no witnesses or records (as Rokita has no authority to do so), took no witness statements, and yet somehow spent 100 hours on this venture. The obvious question is, "How?!?"

In addition, Rokita made no recommendation (though he could have), noting there were already two prosecutors on the case. Playing the political situation with the deftness of Yo Yo Ma on a cello, Rokita stated, ”No one should conclude by the mere activity of this review and report that an offense was committed or not committed.”

If only Rokita had heeded the wisdom of Mr. Miyagi.



Instead Rokita said nothing and released nothing, thereby proving this charade was undertaken only to preserve his image as a 4th District Congressional candidate.

I doubt Rokita could speak. Because if he had said what he really thought, if he had spoken bluntly about what those documents told him, he would have created a statewide headline that would have virtually undone White's candidacy.

By shutting up and shutting down the media, Rokita almost certainly ensures that White will get to the tape, gasping and coughing, just edging Osili, and that's all that matters. Because if that gavel of justice bangs down on Charlie White a month after his election, and he is bounced from his office by virtue of a felony conviction, you know who appoints the guy or gal who will complete the remainder of the term? Governor Mitch Daniels (under Indiana Code § 3-13-4-3).

I've disliked Republican policy positions on many days, but I doubt I've been as personally disappointed in a Republican as I am on this one.

You're better than this, Teddy.

Rokita Creates New Reaganesque Mantra: "Never Release an Investigation Into a Fellow Republican (Charlie White) Ten Days Before Election Day!"

The Arrogance of Power: Governor Daniels Hides Job Numbers, Huffs Out Of Meeting

Everytime you think investigative reporting has withered and died on the vine, you get the Indianapolis Business Journal with the Brizzi series, or this fine work from Bob Segall and WTHR-13 Investigates.

As many of you know, the Governor has claimed Indiana has created 100,000 jobs in the past five years, and much of this job growth was touted during his re-election campaign. But when Channel 13 went to find the jobs, they found some empty cornfields.

In short, there was a chasm between jobs promised and jobs actually created. When asked about the discrepancy, the Governor replied, "You seem to have a blindingly clear view of what is perfectly obvious. In a recession, a lot of businesses have to change their plans."

We get companies may have to cut back, so what's the real number?

The Governor wouldn't say. Instead, he suggested Channel 13 attend an Indiana Economic Development Committee meeting. They did. When the IEDC had nothing to offer, Channel 13 asked the Governor again. He walked out.

Mitch Roob, the director of the IEDC, said the numbers are confidential, so absent a change in the law, Hoosier taxpayers may never be able to quantify the Governor's degree of hyperbole in job creation. WTHR's story points out that many states have laws requiring disclosure of these very numbers.

This makes sense, of course, because all levels of executive government officialdom cut deals with companies that work like this - you bring jobs, we'll build stuff for you to prepare the site, and we'll ignore the taxes you'd otherwise pay. But how can a public ever ensure that "clawback provisions," by which a company would reimburse the government for foregone tax revenues if they fail to meet targets, are properly enforced without knowing the numbers?

It's almost as if the Daniels administration operates with the "HID Information Principle" - Hide It (job creation), Ignore It (IBM fiasco), Delay It (child fatality numbers).

Here's hoping somebody at the Indiana General Assembly will help us bring the truth to light.

The Arrogance of Power: Governor Daniels Hides Job Numbers, Huffs Out Of Meeting

Governor Daniels Complicit in Shady Brizzi Real Estate Deal Or Just Hiding Egg on Face?

Dirty.

I don't care whether it's "technically" legal if it is, which is a huge if. But the Indianapolis Business Journal's Cory Schouten all but proves what I've believed all along.

Let's put together the pieces.

Paul Page says that Carl Brizzi brought an Elkhart property to his attention, so they bought it.

Really, Paul? I hadn't heard you dabbled in commercial. I thought you were a residential guy. But, hey, diversification is good. Just one question. What made you think this was a good deal?

Really, Carl? That's how you spend your free time? Trolling Elkhart, Indiana for hot commercial properties?

Did I mention that only a few months after Brizzi and Page bought the building, its value shot up $500,000 (from $700,000 to $1.2 million ) based on a 10-year lease with the Indiana Department of Child Services at a rate that, if all proceeds were applied to the mortgages, would have had the owners owning free and clear a building in about five years.

I bet if somebody knew that the Indiana Department of Child Services was looking for 13,000 square feet in Elkhart (in other words, a property exactly like the one Brizzi bought), that would be very valuable intelligence, wouldn't it?

But you'd have to know somebody with that kind of information, and I'm sure Brizzi didn't.....what's that? John Bales? You mean Brizzi's business partner? Wait. Isn't he the same guy who represents the state in about every county brokering deals for state agency office space?

But wait! We get confirmation from Page himself.

From Schouten:

[Page] said Brizzi earned his stake in the Elkhart building by bringing him an attractive investment opportunity. He said Brizzi and Bales, a Brizzi partner on previous deals, approached him about the Elkhart building.

It gets worse.

Schouten provides these details on the Elkhart deal. Read closely. You need to hear it all - the good, the bad, and the ugly about this property.

1. The property has two mortgages: A $1.2 million first mortgage with Huntington Bank and a second mortgage for an unspecified amount with a company called BAB Equity LLC, which lists a post office box real estate broker John Bales has used for his companies and political contributions.

2. A spokesman for the Indiana Department of Administration said the second mortgage does not appear to violate Bales’ state leasing contract, which bans him from any direct or indirect ownership interest in properties the state leases.

3. Bales said in an e-mail that he does not control BAB Equity but refused to say who does. He did not respond to follow-up questions including why the company uses his post office box.

4. Bales and his firm, Venture Cos., orchestrated the $2.5 million, 10-year deal that put the state’s Department of Child Services into the building a few months after L & BAB LLC acquired the one-story building at 1659 Mishawaka St. in February 2008.

Interesting. Does DCS know who runs BAB Equity? If not, how can its legal counsel offer any comment on whether Bales has an ownership interest? BAB. What could that possibly stand for? Brizzi AND....hmmm. I need a "B" name.

I wouldn't tell who owns it either if I were Bales because I'd know the follow-up question would be, "Who financed the 2nd mortgage?" As a perhaps related question, does anybody think it's weird the second mortgage wasn't recorded until the day before the FBI raided Tim Durham's office?

Some other choice tidbits:

- Venture (Bales' company) arranged to list the building for sale with an asking price of $1.8 million in late 2008, immediately after the DCS executed its lease deal. The property did not sell.

- The Elkhart building had a market value of about $700,000 before the state lease and $1.2 million after the lease, according to an April 2008 appraisal prepared for Huntington Bank. The appraisal says the building would be difficult to market to traditional office users because it is surrounded by industrial properties and has no street frontage.

- The 1986 building had been vacant for several months and badly in need of repairs when L & BAB put the property under contract. The appraisal noted the 15,200-square-foot building had interior mold, three broken AC units and deferred maintenance on windows, exterior bricks and parking-lot pavement.

- L & BAB had planned to spend $422,500 to renovate the building and prepare most of it, about 13,000 square feet, for the arrival of DCS. The company eventually paid $825,000 for the property, and got a $15,000 allowance from the seller to remedy an animal infestation.

- Financial documents included in the offering show the building owner, building seller, DCS and an insurance company split more than $577,000 of expenses to renovate and outfit the building. The owner’s portion was about $315,000, while DCS paid about $200,000 for upgrades including new restrooms.

The records show Page invested $321,835 in the building and financed $993,750. That includes a commission of $88,400, and a development fee of $45,600, both going to Venture (Bales' company).

- Records suggest Brizzi was added as a co-owner of the building late in the process. Financial documents provided to potential buyers in 2008 list Bruce Zeller of Carmel-based Zeller Construction Co. as co-investing with Page. Zeller did not return a phone message.

What does this all mean? Carl Brizzi got "inside" information from a guy who works for Governor Daniels. Because the Governor hates government owning things, we got fleeced. The State could have bought that building and saved a bundle. Instead, the guy Daneils entrusted to find it deals (and the one who advised and negotiates rates, right?), handed valuable intelligence to a business partner crony, and on top of that, the State even paid $200,000 to make the building better. Wow.

I asked a colleague of mine who is in commercial real estate how he thought this might have gone down, and here's his hypothesis:

(Bales) knows he has a 15,000 SF requirement in Elkhart. He identifies several possibilities, one of which is the building in question ("Building A"). He tips off Brizzi and Page. Brizzi and Page put the building under contract (or get an option with the owner) for 60 day "due diligence period" w/no penalty for not moving forward with deal - it's called a "free look" in the industry. This contract allows Brizzi/Page to purchase Building A at a fair market price (or a bit higher to sweeten the deal for the owner), but for a vacant property. So relatively cheap.

Bales decides w/state signoff that Building A is the best location for the state. Brizzi/Page exercise their option or otherwise move forward on their contract and close on the property. The contract might even have a clause that makes closing contingent on landing a deal. Regardless, state lease on Building A signed at closing or shortly thereafter. This has immediate impact on value of Building A, taking it from a vacant property to a fully leased (10-years), $17 per square foot (e.g., rich) property. Building A also becomes (theoretically) immediately marketable for its income stream to an investor, so it should be easy to flip.

Payoff for Brizzi/Page - at least $500k-$1million each, for almost no risk. Bales without doubt gets something something (like 50%) under the table from Brizzi/Page (without technically violating the self-dealing clause in his state contract).

Not bad for a days work. This scenario is comparable to Gordon Gekko, trading on inside information that the market does not possess. If Building A were a stock/security, there would be a good case for securities violations under federal law... Bales surely violated his ethical duties as a licensed broker, but I'm sure there is no paper trail! So good luck proving it.

All we know for certain is that Bales got $120,000 in commissions. What we don't know is if there were any other buildings in play. What if there weren't? At some point, isn't there a conflict when a broker helps a third party become an owner to consummate a deal that's already on the table? What we also know is that Bales has previously pitched crappy space to government decision makers. Remember when Bales tried to move the Metro Drug Task Force to a rat-den?

You know what I want to see now? Every contract with John Bales' name associated with it. How many friends has he enriched or gotten better deals than the market would have born, but for his intercession and trading on information only available to him? How much did he cost the taxpayers with Governor Daniels' blessing?

Were I the Governor or the Mayor of Indianapolis, I'd end any and all Bales' contracts right now pending a formal investigation.

Will you, Governor? Will you Mr. Mayor?

(Crickets chirp. Tumbleweeds roll through).

Governor Daniels Complicit in Shady Brizzi Real Estate Deal Or Just Hiding Egg on Face?

IBJ Asks Brizzi to Step Down. Mr. Mayor, Governor?!? Where are you?!?

Today, the Indianapolis Business Journal joins the cavalcade of folk asking Carl Brizzi to hang up his spurs.

From today's editorial:

Brizzi, 41, now is dismissing calls for his resignation from leaders of both parties as “ridiculous.” But we join the chorus calling for him to step down and are incredulous that he’s trying to hang on until his second term concludes at year-end.

Consider what Brizzi himself wrote to supporters in December, as he was taking heat for his brief stint as a director of Fair Finance Co., an Akron, Ohio, firm co-owned by Durham that government investigators now suspect was a Ponzi scheme.

“As a public official, I am, understandably, held to a higher standard—and any association or action is subject to greater scrutiny,” Brizzi wrote.

Indeed, it’s hard to imagine an elected position in Indiana where impeccable ethics is more essential. As the top prosecutor in the state’s largest county, he has a tough job. His effectiveness is hindered if other players in the process—from deputy prosecutors and defense attorneys to defendants and sitting judges—perceive him as tainted by scandal.

To be sure, not everyone calling for Brizzi to step aside has the purest of motives. Republicans are eager to distance themselves from a politician with no political future. And Democrats are eager to use the controversies involving the prosecutor to cast doubt on the integrity of the entire GOP. The stakes are high as Democrats seek to return to the high-profile post for the first time in 16 years.

But this is more than a bunch of political posturing. Brizzi ruined his political career through his own bad judgment. Those lapses have hurt Brizzi’s ability to do his job—“to relentlessly pursue the bad guys,” as he likes to say. It’s time for him to stop putting his own interests ahead of the city’s and step down.

Amen, IBJ. I know it will hurt my Democratic party to have Mark Massa take over now, and he'd be all but a lock as the replacement. But if there's any officeholder who must bestow confidence upon the public at all times, it's the one holding the scales of justice. As I reported yesterday, it's time for Brizzi to take his thumb off of those scales.

Also, why haven't Mayor Ballard or Governor Daniels joined the call? Okay, let's be frank. Mayor Ballard probably doesn't know Carl Brizzi has problems because nobody's put it in a comic book yet. But the Governor? Why hasn't Indiana's biggest GOP bat taken a swing? Doesn't he care about the mockery this office has become? Or is he simply too afraid that his growing national political clout will look feeble if Brizzi completely ignores him? Or, is it something much more personal?

So what's the deal, Governor? We're listening.

(Tumblewoods blow past).

IBJ Asks Brizzi to Step Down. Mr. Mayor, Governor?!? Where are you?!?

The Brizzi Chronicles Continue; iPOPA Asks, "Where are Mayor Greg Ballard and Governor Mitch Daniels?

Russ McQuaid with Fox 59 reported yesterday that Carl Brizzi sold out an alleged rape victim, Amy Lindsey, by giving her assailant a beneficial plea deal because he worked for attorney Paul Page, Brizzi's business partner.

According to Ms. Lindsey, Brizzi worked out a plea deal over lunch with the alleged assailant, Robert Odendahl, along with Mr. Page and attorney Carolyn Rader.

Here's the story from Lindsey:

 
It is critical to note that former Deputy Prosecutor Courtney Curtis, who was on the case, told McQuaid she never told Amy Lindsey that. Instead, Curtis said Lindsey's story was suspect, which is why the office agreed to the reduced charge of criminal confinement, which would keep Mr. Odendahl off the sex offender registry and permit him to later petition for modification of his sentence to a misdemeanor.

Regardless of whether Ms. Lindsey's story is true, this case is disturbing on many levels.

First, Ms. Curtis's phrasing is interesting. She doesn't say the lunch meeting never happened. She says she never told Lindsey that the meeting happened. Wouldn't that be simple enough to check out by asking Page or Brizzi? (I'm thinking Brizzi might not return my call, so can somebody else check?)

And if this meeting happened, how can Brizzi say he's not playing favorites with Page? Breaking bread with the alleged criminals you're prosecuting is what he does with everybody? That's hardly the right signal for a guy supposedly advocating for victims. (If you do criminal defense and you've met Brizzi for lunch with your client, please contact me...because I want to see if you're on Brizzi's donor list).

Also, if the rape story was so suspect, why was Odendahl charged? Didn't the prosecutor screening the case talk to the victim, or does Brizzi's office just charge people with rape willy-nilly to let them correct any mistakes on the back end, provided they have the right counsel?

Elsewhere in the GOP nightmare known as the Brizzi Administration...

The Indianapolis Star joined the chorus of folks asking for Carl Brizzi's resignation. Here's the read:

One of the saddest aspects of the Marion County prosecutor's financial ties to defense attorneys is that they're legal.

The law, however, only opens the door to conflict of interest. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi has walked through, more than once. Two key members of his party have said "enough," and so should Brizzi.

Mark Massa had plenty of strategic reason for demanding Brizzi's resignation Wednesday in the wake of revelations by the Indianapolis Business Journal of Brizzi's intervention in a criminal case on behalf of a client of his business partner.

Massa is the GOP candidate to replace Brizzi, who is not seeking a third term. Democrats will run against Brizzi, in effect, so Massa needs to distance himself.

That said, there is no way Massa's criticism -- seconded by GOP County Chairman Tom John -- can be dismissed as "a political stunt" by an obstinate prosecutor.

It was at best abysmal judgment for Brizzi to have become half-owner of an office building with a criminal defense lawyer. It raises red flags that Brizzi had to put up no money toward the $900,000 investment with Paul J. Page.

Then to personally push through a lenient plea deal for an accused drug dealer who was a Page client, over the objections of the deputy prosecutor, and to order the return of $10,000 confiscated from the defendant, takes observers beyond skepticism to cynicism.

Nor is it the first time.

There is the continuing FBI scrutiny of Brizzi's ties to financier Tim Durham, his 2006 campaign finance chairman and the target of a securities investigation.

And there's the case of Paula Willoughby. Sentenced to 110 years in prison in 1991 for hiring a man to kill her husband, Willoughby walked free in 2009 via a sentence modification Brizzi's office supported. Her father, businessman Harrison Epperly, along with defense attorney Jennifer Lukemeyer and Lukemeyer's law partner James H. Voyles Jr., were election campaign contributors to Brizzi. Brizzi gave back Epperly's $28,500 -- after the sentencing change -- and said it played no role in his decision.

The public should not have to trust him on that, because the entanglements Brizzi has indulged in should not exist in this critical office. Laws and rules, not just personal behavior, should skew toward credibility and independence at all costs. Massa's pledge of a batch of reforms, including eschewal of outside business dealings, sounds bold, if a bit self-serving, in the current atmosphere. It ought to be moot. The old temptations must go, and so must the man who has succumbed to them.

Lucky Carl Strikes Real Estate Gold

First, I'm not sure why people keep reporting Brizzi's Elkhart buildling buy was for $900,000; it was for $825,000. (Look at 1659 Mishawaka Street for the Abnikcar sold to L&BAB LLC entry).

Second, isn't anybody curious about how Brizzi just happened to come upon a property which had 13 of its 15,000 square feet rented by the Indiana Department of Child Services within five months for $248,000 per year on what I'm told (and still trying to confirm) is a "triple net lease"? Under this type of lease, not only does the landowner get a lease payment for the space, renter (in this case, the State of Indiana) would also pay for the real estate taxes, utilities, and maintenance, which means there is literally no risk for Brizzi and Page. At that rental rate, the two would own the building free and clear in just over three years.

Can I ask a question?

Why wouldn't the State of Indiana have just bought the building, which the Department of Administration could have done under Indiana law. Obviously, DCS was in the market for a lot of space. Wouldn't somebody have looked around and said, "Hey, here's a building we can buy for $825,000 that's just the right size! That would sure be cheaper than idiotically leasing that same space for $248,000 a year for ten years!"

Maybe somebody with the state did know DCS was looking. Maybe they were the person looking. And maybe somebody told somebody else about it. Is this conspiratorial supposition? Maybe.

Don't you have to ask how Brizzi got so lucky? What compelled him to look at commercial properties in Elkhart? Was it the thriving Elkhart real estate economy? I bet if you asked, he couldn't answer any better than he could tell you why he bought Cellstar stock.

Also, how does Brizzi get away with listing a 50% interest in an $825,000 building as being worth $50-$100,000 on his Statement of Economic Interests?

First Place Media Strategy

On the politics end, there's been a robust debate in Democratic circles about whether D's should have been first to call for Brizzi's resignation, and I apologize to the Democratic candidates for prosecutor, Terry Curry and Greg Bowes, if anybody took away from my critique the idea they were comfortable with what was going down in Brizzi's office.

I've heard Curry "on the stump" quite a bit, and what this office has become sickens him. But until Massa spoke, nobody had called for Brizzi's resignation publicly or weighed in on Brizzi as strongly as Massa did. Once the dam broke, Curry then took it up a notch and asked for a special prosecutor to investigate Brizzi. Fortunately, this angle got covered by Channel 13. (Well played, sir).

Greg Bowes also took a swing at Massa after the fact:

Yesterday, the Republican candidate for Prosecutor announced he would establish a "Public Integrity Unit" to investigate crimes committed by public officials. On February 12, 2010, when I filed my candidacy papers, I announced to the press that I would establish a public integrity unit. I am glad to see the Republican candidate likes my idea.

Bowes also pointed out his long-standing suspicion of Brizzi's estranged relationship with truth. Bowes reminded voters that in December of 2006, he filed an extremely detailed complaint with the Indiana Disciplinary Commission in which he argued that Brizzi knowingly lied at a public hearing. Bowes wrote:

On July 19, 2006, Carl Brizzi . . .in his capacity as Marion County Prosecutor, gave testimony before (the City-County Council's Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee) regarding Marion County’s collective efforts to manage the problem of overcrowding in its jail.

While discussing the high-profile release of an detainee, James Stewart, who was later accused of murdering seven people, Mr. Brizzi stated, “He was asked to be held, and the judge made a decision not to hold him.” Mr. Brizzi went on to say, “it was his record that caused my front line deputy to ask that henot be released.” He later said Stewart “was OR’d over our objection.”

These statements were false.

The transcript of Stewart’s initial hearing where he was released shows that no deputy prosecutor asked that Stewart be held, and no deputy prosecutor objected to his release, because there was no deputy prosecutor present.

Now, there is a school of thought that cannot be easily discounted that Democrats ingeniously and intentionally kept silent. The theory goes that by waiting for Massa to ambush Brizzi, Democrats ensured that Brizzi's reaction was to lash out, which, sure enough, he did immediately. Brizzi called Massa's press conference a "political stunt," and then referred to Tom John as one of the most "ineffective chairmen Marion County has seen in decades." I dare say we should expect the "payback is a (expletive)" bud to go full bloom before we leave Spring, and Republicans will devour each other for months to come.

But, reasonable minds can differ, and tactically, I still think Democrats missed the boat on this one.

Here's why.

If Democrats had gone out first, Massa absolutely gets an ostensible out for his action. He can say to Brizzi, "Hey, I want to let you know I have to do this because the Democrats put me in a box." But I can't fathom any universe where Brizzi's anger is lessened when Massa craps all over him, and folks, he was going to haveto do it. Whether you agree with me hinges on whether you think a deep cut from within the family shallows if you see it coming and you can blame somebody else for it having to happen. On that score, I just feel certain we would have seen the "Brizzi backlash" even if Dems had gone first, and we would have picked up the PR bump in the process.

One comment posted on this blog today said I'm wrong because:

(1) Democrats would have been accused of "pulling a stunt" in asking for Brizzi's resignation; and

(2) Republicans are in a circle shooting at each other, and it's best to let them be.

With all due respect to Councillor Jose Evans, a political stunt is when you go to the Mayor's Office and hand him a letter asking for the resignation of the water department director. That's grandiose political theater that everybody knows won't change anything. But here, Brizzi had gone so far over the line, there's no way it would have played like a stunt foremost. If you think I'm wrong, go back up and read the portions of the Star's editorial I italicized.

On the GOP self-slaughter, yeah, once a fracas breaks out among all the principles, you can step back. That's conventional wisdom. But until it broke out, we had the chance to impress upon independent voters that D's were leading the charge to clean up the pervasive Durham-Brizzi-Plowman-(Massa?)-(Daniels?) axis of corruption.

Terry Curry, Greg Bowes, Ed Treacy, and Melina Kennedy all made public statements about Brizzi/Massa, but not before Massa stepped to his microphone. Did you see any of their names in the Star editorial?

Why are Ballard and Daniels Tight-Lipped?

Two big names we haven't heard from on Brizzi are Mayor Greg Ballard and Governor Mitch Daniels.

As I previously reported, Kennedy called on Ballard to ask for Brizzi's resignation as well. The Mayor hasn't replied, and I think I might know why. Ballard's campaign consultant (to the tune of $10,000 per month) is Jennifer Hallowell, the political strategist who got Brizzi elected twice and, by quite a few accounts, either had or currently has a social relationship with Brizzi. That's gotta make things dicey for Hizzoner. How do you publicly bust the chops of your political consultant's boyfriend?

And where is Governor Daniels on this? Does he support Massa's call for Brizzi's resignation? If so, why hasn't Mitch publicly conceded that his biking buddy is "riding dirty?"

Does it have anything to do with the fact that the Governor's Office has to approve leases under Indiana law? I'm sorry, who approved the Brizzi building lease?

The Brizzi Chronicles Continue; iPOPA Asks, "Where are Mayor Greg Ballard and Governor Mitch Daniels?

Massa Marks Up Brizzi, Shows Democrats How It's Done

Last Friday, I wrote this:

...the Brizzi reign has reached such cataclysmically embarrassing proportions, I keep expecting an avalanche of high-ranking Republicans to ask publicly for Brizzi's resignation in concert. But nobody asks. Not Tom John, not Mark Massa, not Murray Clark, and not Governor Daniels. I can only conclude by their complete silence that they are okay with all of this.

Five days later (a/k/a "this morning" for the mathematically-challenged among us), Massa called for Brizzi's resignation, and he was joined shortly thereafter by Marion County GOP Chairman Tom John, to both their credit.

From my good friend, Jon Easter, at Indydemocrat:

Little did we know that the first to break the silence on the issue would be the guy trying to replace him from HIS OWN PARTY, Mark Massa.

Can I ask my own party and its candidates a gentle question?

What in the world were you waiting for?!?

Why were you all acting like you needed the Republicans to make it safe in the political water? Was there any doubt that the Brizzi administration was charting a path strewn with public confidence-crushing scandals?

To her credit, Democratic mayoral candidate Melina Kennedy today asked Mayor Ballard to show leadership and ask for Brizzi's resignation. (Technically, Hizzoner would be joining others again after-the-fact, but we'll take his "leadership" in whatever form we can get it).

Kennedy writes:

On election night in 2007, as television stations and thousands of viewers at home looked on, Greg Ballard chose one person to introduce him as the next mayor: Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi.

The rule of law is the basis of our system. If we lose confidence in the very person who is supposed to prosecute our laws, then our community's respect for the rule of law is deeply compromised. We are at a dangerous moment in the history of our city and we must take public corruption seriously.

Mayor Ballard is uniquely positioned to influence Brizzi given the close relationship described above. Indeed, as Marion County’s top Republican, and Indianapolis' top elected official, Ballard has both the ability and the duty to personally ask Brizzi to resign.

Without delay, Ballard should make every effort to end the reign of unethical and corrupt behavior in positions of public trust.

Now, some Demos have retorted that if Brizzi resigns, Governor Daniels gets to appoint his predecessor! You know he'd pick Massa, his former chief-of-staff, and he'd have eight months as an incumbent and all the perks of the office.

Folks, Democrats calling for Brizzi's resignation first wouldn't have made him leave, it would have emboldened him while giving all the Dems the PR benefit of the moral highground. Then Republicans would have had a harder time making the call themselves because they'd be following Democrats' lead. It could have been a win, win, win.

Instead, Republicans can say they lead the charge to clean up their own house while a lot of Democrats watched from the sideline. Are they wrong?

My kingdom for some Democratic media tacticians.

Massa Marks Up Brizzi, Shows Democrats How It's Done

Why Do Governor Daniels' People at the Department of Child Services Lie About Stupid Stuff? Here's Why.

I have now written not once, not twice, but three times about the Indiana Department of Child Services' failure to produce a


child fatality report for the 2008 and 2009 fiscal years.

I hypothesized that DCS would not release a report before the Indiana General Assembly session ended in 2010.

I stated that DCS would sit on the report because it knew that if the child death numbers went up, legislators might want to actually spend money on children or might want to slow DCS' efforts to cut costs with service providers.

I also said the Governor would look foolish for all the boasting he did during his re-election campaign about how adding family case managers would mean better outcomes if, as I predicted, the numbers rose from the all-time low of 36 deaths in FY 2007.

Call me iPOPAdamus.

After only 643 days, the new report is here. The child abuse and neglect fatality number for FY 2008? An increase of 10, to 46.

In fairness to DCS, sometimes no matter what the agency, police, churches, schools, service providers, judges, guardians ad litem, or kind strangers do, children will be killed by evil parents. There's not always a tell-tale sign for the homicidal parent.

But if you strongly imply you're saving kids by adding 800 government employees to the state payroll then it's fair game to ask whether those new case managers are properly trained or whether the agency has a massive turnover rate, or whether DCS is paying millions to service providers for parents without any method for assessing whether the services even work...because it sure isn't working out like you claimed, Governor.

DCS' 2007 report makes a point of noting that not only did the overall number of child abuse and neglect fatalities decrease from 53 to 36, but also that the number of deaths among children with DCS contact went down from 11 to 9.

In the new report, the number of fatalities with DCS contact rose to 15.

Recognizing the obvious, how does DCS respond?

The rise in fatalities from 2007 to 2008 is in part attributed to the collaborative effort to report all child fatalities. Overall, 198 deaths were reviewed in 2007 and 290 were reviewed in 2008. There is an increased awareness in child welfare professionals such as police, coroners, and hospitals personnel who are working together to report all unexpected, unexplained, and suspicious child deaths to DCS.

In other words, DCS is telling you there were just more reports made.

I certainly won't dispute that, but doesn't DCS have to acknowledge that there might have been 66 abuse and neglect deaths in 2006, not 36? Isn't it admitting, point blank, that it has no idea how many actual deaths have occurred in the past because of the very underreporting it acknowledges for 2007? Even now, couldn't the the number be higher for 2008 than 46, given that the additional reporting is based on a PR "collaborative" effort to report deaths, not legislation creating a statewide mandate to law enforcement, hospitals, and the like to report the same?

Doesn't DCS have to admit that Dr. Antoinette Laskey, director of the task force, is right that Indiana will never truly know how many children die at the hands of abuse and neglect until such a mandatory protocol exists for investgating all children's deaths and the state child fatality review team has a budget for performing its work?

But here is what's really interesting. If you read the DCS report cover page, you will see that it says "Published January 2010."

If this report was published in January of 2010, how come when I called in January, February, and March, I was told the report wasn't ready, and why is the report being released to the media on April Fool's Day? From DCS's press release:

Indianapolis, IN- April is Child Abuse Prevention Month and it is a time to remind everyone the importance of prevention and child safety. In conjunction with Child Abuse Prevention Month, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) 2008 Child Fatality Report was released today.

Is there anything that could account for the delay in issuing a "published" report?

Oh, did I tell you when the Indiana General Assembly adjourned? March 13.

Yeah, call me iPOPAdamus.

Why Do Governor Daniels' People at the Department of Child Services Lie About Stupid Stuff? Here's Why.

Hey, Indiana Department of Child Services...DAYS PAST DUE:

613!

But that's not surprising, given my prediction that nothing would be released until the session was over to prevent legislators from doing anything.

But what if my cynicism just isn't cynical enough?

What if the truth is that no new report will be released until the numbers of child fatalities go back up to the low year touted in all of Governor Daniels' campaign commercials? Heck, we might not get another report before Daniels is out of office. If this thing blows apart at the seems, it could hurt his national ambitions, be they presidential or RNC Chair-ish.

Hey, Indiana Department of Child Services...DAYS PAST DUE:

Daniels Auction Gets National Pub; Jim Arnold's Profile in Courage

After the Colts lost the Superbowl, Governor Daniels had to hoist a New Orleans Saints flag outside his office for a week after losing a bet to quickly-fading presidential aspirant and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Now Daniels is going to use the flag to profit charity by signing it and auctioning it off.

Currently, the high bid is $1,025. What a great idea.

But no good Daniels deed goes unnoticed in the "no-I'm-not running, but, wait, I'm keeping the door open, but not really, but somehow I keep mysteriously appearing over and over in national media outlets and showing up at major conferences with influential Republicans" administration. This is no exception. How'd this get to Dallas? I bet the Daniels staff had nothing to do with it.

But the bigger part of this story is State Senator Jim Arnold (D-LaPorte), who introduced a resolution congratulating the Saints. Political figures duck when asked about who they favor in a sporting event for fear of alienating the hometown crowd. Not Arnold, who has been a lifetime Saints fan. And what's most impressive is that New Orleans isn't anywhere near LaPorte. (Sorry, but the folks from Lake County who supported the Bears in Superbowl 2006 weren't doing anything noble. They were maintaining political cover in their neighborhoods.)

Having said this, we pray that no Democrats in the General Assembly ever honor the New England Patriots in any way. That is a recipe for certain electoral defeat.

Daniels Auction Gets National Pub; Jim Arnold's Profile in Courage

Under the Things We Already Knew...Daniels Interested in Presidency!

Jim Shella reports today that Governor Mitch Daniels is "keeping the door open" with respect to a 2012 presidential bid.

The Shella headline reads, "Daniels Changes Position on 2012." As much as I'd like to criticize the Governor for flip-flopping, I really can't. It would be too disingenuous because nobody believed him when he said he wasn't running.

Under the Things We Already Knew...Daniels Interested in Presidency!

Mitch Daniels & Greg Ballard: Ingenious Republican Strategems - Part II

Last week I talked about Todd Rokita's disingenuous pursuit of legislative districts that are not drawn by "politicians." I got great feedback, but I haven't heard from Rokita's camp in response to my challenge for him to prove his "concept map" creates more competitive districts than currently exist.

Today, I do a two-for-one and talk about Governor Daniel's decision to lease the toll road and Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard's decision to lease Indianapolis parking meter collections and operations.

Probably the greatest failing of democracy is its ineptitude at stopping politicians from mortgaging our children's future. It's easier to push expenses into the 2030s then make us square up now because the people who will ultimately pay the tab are too enthralled with Handy Manny and his screwdriver to notice they're the ones being screwed. Buying now and making people who can't vote pay later is a tried and true political gambit.

But what if, instead of pushing expenses into the future, you could bring money you were going to earn...back from the future like Marty and Doc Brown?

Oh, the political brilliance of this idea is so profound, you'll be amazed to know the Governor and Mayor Ballard were probably inspired to adopt it by a J.G. Wentworth commercial.

Here's a typical script, if you haven't seen one of those:

A J.G. Wentworth success story. Felicia and the annuity.

Felicia: A few years ago, I inherited an annuity from my grandfather. I started receiving monthly payments from his insurance company. Then everything seemed to happen at once.

Narrator: Felicia's employer moved to another state, and she was left unemployed.

Felicia: Your money starts to go pretty fast when there's no cash coming in.

Narrator: J.G. Wentworth knows that a big change in life's circumstances can change how you view your annuity.

Felicia: I heard about J.G. Wentworth through TV ads.

Narrator: If you have an annuity that is no longer serving your needs, and you need cash now, call J.G. Wentworth. You'll get a free appraisal and have all your questions answered. Don't wait. The sooner you call, the faster you'll have your money.

The premise of annuity conversion is pretty simple, and politically-speaking, breath-takingly shrewd. Say you have an asset that will create revenue for you into the indefinite future, like a toll road or a ton of parking meters. You could wait and get the money year to year, but if you're a Governor or Mayor, wouldn't it be more fun to get all the money for the next 10 to 90 years or so right now? All you have to do is enter into a long-term lease with a company that will give you a big lump sum now because, unlike you, they'll be around after eight years still making money hand over first.

If you do this, not only will you have more money for roads or billionaire sports owner prop-ups, this tactic is also a handy middle finger to the guy or gal who unseats you. That's money they won't get! Heh heh.

You think I'm wrong? Tell me this script wouldn't have worked as well as the original:

A J.G. Wentworth success story. Mitch and the toll road.

Mitch: Back in 2004, I inherited a state in pretty good fiscal shape. I started receiving monthly payments from the toll road. Then everything seemed to happen at once.

Narrator: Mitch's Indiana employers moved to other states, and Mitch was left with growing numbers of unemployed.

Mitch: Your money starts to go pretty fast when there's no cash coming in.

Narrator: J.G. Wentworth knows that a big change in life's circumstances can change how you view your toll road revenues.

Mitch: I heard about J.G. Wentworth through TV ads.

Narrator: If you own a toll road that is no longer serving your needs, and you need cash now, call J.G. Wentworth. You'll get a free long-term lease appraisal and have all your questions answered. Don't wait. The sooner you call, the faster you'll have your money from an international conglomerate.

I rest my case.

Also, you notice how Mayor Ballard won't tell us how many years the contract for parking services with be? He'll just say that it will be long enough that the company can recover its investment. I promise you it will extend beyond his term.

Why should this concern you? Right after the toll road transferred hands, the rates went up big time. Expect the same with parking downtown, friends.....because (in their minds)...it's "their money and they want it now!"

Mitch Daniels & Greg Ballard: Ingenious Republican Strategems - Part II

An Open Letter to U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison on Durham's Assets

Dear Mr. Morrison:

We've never met, but I know you by name and reputation. I would like to offer advice on how you preserve the latter.

Most lawyers I know think politics doesn't play in law enforcement. Sure, they know your office issued a subpoena without Attorney General Eric Holder's authorization trying to force disclosure of all visitors to a left-wing media website. Sure, they know you were appointed by Michael Mukasey, the Republican Attorney General under Republican George Bush. And, sure, they know whoever takes over for you will be appointed by Barak Obama (if the Republicans in the Senate will start confirming people in Indiana).

But we generally haven't countenanced politics influencing the handling of a specific case, with Gore v. Bush being a pretty huge exception

Unfortunately, this perception took a hit when Alberto Gonzales (a/k/a "Karl Rove's lackey") started firing career professionals like yourself for not aggressively prosecuting Democratic office holders.

As you probably know, the general public is more cynical than lawyers. (I know. How could this be possible?!?)

Accordingly, when things happen in a case that aren't explained well, a lot of people start to speculate wildly. I'm of the opinion (in large part because of Gonzalez) that you don't have to be an X-Files fanboy and wear tinfoil on your head to accept that there are people with formidable spheres of influence who might subtly sway how a case moves forward behind the scenes.

Mr. Morrison, you can assuage the conspiratorial angst just by filling in some knowledge gaps.

Here's all the public knows. On November 24, 2009, you filed a complaint seizing Tim Durham's assets. Six days later, you filed a motion dismissing the forfeiture complaint. Your office's explanation was that Durham's assets would not "dissipate."

You should clarify what you mean and explain generically what you learned in those critical six days. "Dissipate" in the traditional legal sense is synonymous with "to waste."

Durham may be so leveraged on his home and cars that he cannot sell anything because he couldn't convey clear title without retiring the liens/mortgages/loans first. But how can he not waste (or otherwise hide) money in bank accounts? Also, while this is not my field, aren't security interests created all the time with general descriptions, such as "accounts receivable, inventories," etc.? What would stop Durham from selling some art, jewelry, or other home furnishings on the sneaky sneak then making the money "disappear" into the friends' bank accounts or safe deposit boxes in Liechtenstein?

I ask because today it was a buyer's bonanza for Fair Financial co-owner, Jim Cochran. I am not making this up. He is having an everything must go sale at his home at 298 Mooring Line Drive, Naples, Florida, and the sale is going splendidly! Cochran's Bentley sold for $135,000 in the first five minutes, and a couch went for $2,500. Check out some of this nice stuff:










In short, Mr. Morrison, if Durham ends up paying people pennies on the dollar, you'll be questioned for not doing more, in particular, when Congressman Jon Boccieri (D-OH 16th) has again asked you to help freeze all of Fair Finance, Cochran, and Durham assets.

Why aren't you listening? Why aren't you speaking? Why aren't you indicting?

Yes, we know there are restrictions about how specific you can get regarding an ongoing investigation, but when you say absolutely nothing, you leave a vacuum that makes people fill in gaps with conjecture of nefariousness.

How about this idea for a "The Firm"-type novel? A midwestern Governor (who we'll call Ditch Maniels) with massive financial ties to a Ponzi-scheme operator, sees his bid to be President hanging in the balance. He confides his worries to his sister, who we'll call Deborah Maniels, a former U.S. attorney before she went to the Department of Justice in D.C. Using her old contacts, Deborah gets the investigation stalled. Somewhere along the way, somebody gets shoved down an elevator shaft or dies in a freak escalator accident.

Do I think seriously think something like that happened? Not a chance. I'm being facetious. But I have the luxury of being a lawyer. I promise you there are people wondering who called in what favors to create a 180 in six days. Help put their fears to rest, Mr. Morrison.

(Send me your best conspiracy theories involving a local politico, and I'll print the winner's entry and give him or her a free annual membership to iPOPA).

Have a great weekend, friends!

An Open Letter to U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison on Durham's Assets

Daniels Says the Money's Gone?!?

When asked if he would return contributions from Tim Durham, Governor Mitch Daniels stated that the money "has been spent."

Hmm.

So when did the Governor unload the $160,000 that was still in his campaign committee account on June 30, 2009? And to whom did he give it, or on what did he spend it? He's not running for any office I'm aware of, or so he repeatedly tells us all.

If Daniels gave it to another Republican committee, say the Indiana State Republican Central Committee, does anybody think he couldn't get them to give it back? Last time I checked, he was the Governor and leader of his party.

What the Star was asking is whether a politician who gorges himself on ill-gotten gains should have to disgorge. And now we know where the Governor stands.

Daniels Says the Money's Gone?!?

Republican Bagman's Office Raided! iPOPA Challenges Advance Indy

When Marla Stevens was first investigated and then indicted, Advance Indiana, a local conservative blog, repeatedly mentioned that Stevens had donated $25,000 to Congressman Andre Carson. Advance Indiana called for the return of those funds, which he claimed were from ill-gotten gains. (Carson was ahead of him on the return, as I recall).

Today, we learn that one of the Republican Party biggest donors, Tim Durham, had his office raided by the FBI, and he is reportedly in custody. AI reports that Durham donated $150,000 to Carl Brizzi. But, strangely, that's where the reporting ends.

So I have to ask. If Durham's pyramid collapses, will AI call for the return of all the donations, just like he did with Carson?

What I've learned from exchanges with AI's publisher, Gary Welsh, is that the "return the money" rule applies only to those who don't have defunct committees, so that if, through some crazy coincidence, both John McCain and Andre Carson got a contribution from somebody who was indicted, only Andre would have to give the money back. Don't get it, but let's run with it for now.

I didn't have time to record all of the donations because there were so many of them, but here are some notable ones:

Mitch Daniels for Governor Committee:
2004 - $75,000
2005 - $10,000
2006 - $50,000
2007- $35,000
2008 - $5,000

Aiming Higher (Governor Daniel's Pac) - 2006 - $10,000

Greg Zoeller for Attorney General - 2008 - $11,000

Greater Indianapolis Republican Finance Committee - 2007 - $25,000

Marion County Republican Central Committee:
2005 - $1,250
2006 - $5,000

Indiana State Republican Central Committee:
2005 - $37,500
2006 - $27,500
2007 - $40,000

Hoosiers for Richard Mourdock - 2007 - $1,500

Committee to Elect Brian Bosma - 2007 - $10,000

Nineteen Pac - 2008 - $1,000

House Republican Campaign Committee:
2006 - $25,000
2007 - $8,580

Friends of Mike Delph:
2006 - $5,000
2007 - $5,000

Senator Bev Gard got $1,174 in-kinded to her for a fundraiser.

The only Democrat I found on the list is Baron Hill, who received $4,600 in 2007. Baron, send him back his money if you haven't already, dude!

I guess since Jon Elrod and Rudy Guiliani have defunct committees, they get a pass on their respective $2,300s.

I will wait and see what happens because we don't have all the information yet. But if Mr. Durham ends up taking a plea for financial misdeeds, I'll be waiting to hear from AI, and I'll be expecting the Governor and the multitude of Republican committees to cough it up, just like Advance Indiana would expect.

Republican Bagman's Office Raided! iPOPA Challenges Advance Indy

Daniels Gets Kudos From IPOPA?!?!

To some in my political circle, he's the man we love to hate. In the past month, I blasted him for pushing forward with privatization of public benefits in Indiana even though the same experiment failed miserably in Texas.

But my view of our Governor, Mitch Daniels, changed radically with a simple act last Friday.

I was standing in the hall at a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program for the Julian Center and Heartland Pro Bono Council when my colleague, Shariq Siddiqui, got a phone call on his cell phone.

"Hello."

(Voice on other ends says something....)

"Oh, hello, Governor...." Ears perk up and open widely!

It's a brief conversation, and when it ends, I have to ask. "I'm sorry, but did you just talk to Governor Daniels?" Shariq knows a cross-examination is coming, as I'm always looking for a story, so he fesses up.

Shariq informs me that, yes, it was the Governor, and he called because he had read the press release issued by the Muslim Alliance of Indiana (MAI) decrying the actions of the shooter at Ford Hood, Texas. The Governor tells Shariq he's proud of MAI. Unlike some other Muslim organizations nationally, MAI does not focus solely on Muslim soldiers and the microscope they are undoubtedly going to face now. MAI's statement (and its ensuing editorial) is an unequivocal denunciation of the inexcusable act, and it calls on all Muslims to extend their prayers and generosity to military families.

Based on the tone of both comments on the Indianapolis Star and other papers throughout the country and the blog postings of the conservatorati, the Governor doesn't do himself any favors openly embracing MAI. And yet, he does it anyway, because he knows MAI has supported him, and he has supported it by hosting an annual Iftar at the Statehouse.

The Governor knows the scrutiny (and possible violence) coming next for Muslims in America, and he has the decency and intellectual honesty to not put every Muslim in a radical, jihadist camp (more on this in a separate posting).

Being painfully objective means giving credit where it's due, even to my political adversaries, and I tip my hat to the Governor for being, not just a leader, but a moral leader on this issue. I daresay that there will be segments of my own party that will not be this bold.

Then the next day, the Governor hit another one out of the park when he signals to casinos that there aren't going to be any special tax treats just because Ohio has passed land-based casino gambling. (As an aside, certainly the people who invested in the Indiana licenses contemplated new entries into the market? If not, sorry, but they're crappy business people).

The Governor states that, if "bailouts" were to occur, they certainly wouldn't go first to an industry that is profitable. However, the Governor agrees to scrap some costly and ridiculous regulations, such as requiring an engine and sea captain on a boat that never goes anywhere.

The Governor correctly ridicules what I have long called "the morality carwash" - the notion that somehow the sin of gambling washes off if it occurs in a large body of water.

You're batting two for two this week, Governor. I wouldn't be painfully objective if I didn't say so.

Daniels Gets Kudos From IPOPA?!?!

Daniels' Definition of "Job" Needs Clarification

In his 2008 State of the State address, Mitch Daniels repeated the popular Republican mantra:

"Government doesn't create jobs."

Question for the Governor. What do you call it then when you pay a wage to somebody who does labor for you?

I ask because you used $24 million in federal stimulus funds to create 1900 jobs for Hoosiers between 16 and 24 years old through the Young Hoosiers Conservation Corps, which is basically our version of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC).

Your party HATES this kind of federal jobs program, Governor. Ask any of your presidential frontrunners. Ask Mike Pence. But we understand you had to do this. You got federal money, so you could ONLY use it for this, right? But, thankfully, it expires this week.

What's that? It worked so well that you decided to extend it another year?

Interesting.

Governor, since these Hoosiers obviously don't have "jobs," should they call your Department of Workforce Development about unemployment?

Daniels' Definition of "Job" Needs Clarification

Governor Daniels Gets Credit for Childlike Honesty

Say your child comes to you and tells you about something he or she did wrong. Here's your conundrum. You have to take action because of the bad conduct, but if you're too strong, you're going to discourage future disclosures.

Meet our man-child du jour, Governor Mitch Daniels.

The Indiananpolis Star reports today that the Guv has pulled the plug on the IBM/ACS-led welfare system overhaul because it's an unfixable, lamentable mess. What is refreshing is that the Governor actually admitted it was a mistake.

He could have blasted IBM/ACS and said that the problem wasn't privatization of social services, but rather the vendors. He didn't. He gave the full confession and admitted the idea itself was ill-bred.

The Guv made his concession knowing blogs, both local and national, would blast him in an effort to undermine all privatization efforts and his ascendant national spotlight. (Sorry, but if he isn't running for President, he's definitely posturing for a future cabinet post or job as CEO of some conservative-led company. Nobody feeds the national media beast and takes shots at the President the way the Guv has lately without an ulterior motive).

Governor, thank you for your honesty on this issue. But at the same time, I can't give you a free pass anymore than I can my child.

How anybody who knew what transpired in Texas under IBM/ACS's lead could think privatization of social services would work in Indiana was engaging in massively self-delusional behavior that comes only from being so committed to a flawed notion that it overwhelms reason. This is the exact philosophical adherence that caused a misdirected war in Iraq (when we should have been in Afghanistan).

But at least the Governor had the courage to say, metaphorically speaking, "Yeah, there aren't any WMDs, so we're pulling out now." That makes him a step above the "never admit a mistake" president under whom he once served.

Governor Daniels Gets Credit for Childlike Honesty