City-County Councillor Paul Bateman Pays the Price: Nice Knowing You!

"What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" - Matthew 16:26

Minister Paul Bateman, the Democratic City-County Councillor who broke party rank to give approval to Mayor Greg Ballard's short-sighted and short-monied fifty-year parking lease to ACS, might as well vote with Ballard and the Republican caucus for the remainder of his short time in office in exchange for a job with the City or with a city contractor because this is almost certainly his last term.

Steve Talley, the former council president who resigned the District 11 seat, which Bateman assumed, to take a job in the Department of Public Safety in the Peterson Administration in 2005, has decided he'd like his seat back. Needless to say, party faithful and elected officials in Lawrence Township are strongly supportive. Talley already did an impressive amount of door-to-door for other Democratic candidates in 2010, so he's undoubtedly reconnected with many of his constituents.

In his short time on the council, Bateman had already stained the Democratic Party's brand when, in late 2009, a bankruptcy trustee sought a nearly $1.3 million judgment against Bateman and others for allegedly using money, or authorizing the use of such monies, from the Russell Foundation for personal expenses, such as clothing, dental work, and purchase of a fleet of vehicles. Bateman was never charged criminally, and he made the right decision to step down from the Council's Ethics Committee when the investigation was ongoing. But I never understood how someone could be so integral to an organization while knowing so little about expenses of over half of its total donations toward non-charity related activities.

Moreover, that cloud was hardly one the party needed hanging over it while it was trying to contend that the GOP had bred a "culture of corruption" via Tim Durham, Lincoln Plowman, and Carl Brizzi.

In the interest of full disclosure, when I served as campaign manager for Pam Carter's attorney general race in 1992, Paul Bateman was one of the first people on board. Bateman was working with the UAW then out of Anderson, he was very helpful to our effort, and I've liked him personally since then. In fact, even today, if I saw Councillor Bateman on the street, I'd shake his hand and wish him well.

But not as a councillor.

City-County Councillor Paul Bateman Pays the Price: Nice Knowing You!

Councillor Speedy Lives Up To His Name; iPOPA Asks, "Where's the Fire?"

Maybe City-County Councillor Mike Speedy should change his name to Mike Premature.

Today he filed a proposal to transfer the City's water and wastewater facilities to Citizens Energy Group. Here's the problem, and let me say this as clearly as I can: the principals have not completed the due diligence on this deal yet. What kind of city-county councillor would authorize this transfer without first knowing fully the final terms for settlement and having a full accounting of the risks?

I also have to wonder why Mayor Ballard is pressing ahead so urgently. Hmmm. Has anybody heard of any impending deadlines for paying anything that might make it important to get this deal to closing quickly so he can get the cash ASAP? Hmmm.

It struck me as odd that the guy who introduced this resolution is the one who's bailing out of the city-county council to take over Mike Murphy's Indiana House District 90, but if you look at Speedy's website, you know this deal is rife with Speedy's "political currency" - sewer bragging rights. Speedy notes, "My accomplishments include securing funding for over $13 million in construction projects for street re-surfacing and sewer projects."

Imagine the largesse Hizzoner will dole out to Speedy for carrying his water (no pun intended).

Councillor Speedy Lives Up To His Name; iPOPA Asks, "Where's the Fire?"

Evans Mayoral Bid Curious, But His Water Company Meddling Dead-On

Democratic City-County Councillor, Jose Evans, will file paperwork at 2:30 p.m. today that establishes his "exploratory committee" to run for Mayor of Indianapolis, a move that will surely have people shaking their heads.

With a clearly-established candidate among party faithful in Melina Kennedy, a formidable "outsider" candidate in Brian Williams, and even an African-American candidate in former At-Large City-County Councillor Ron Gibson, one may ask, "What's the play here for Evans?" Is this what iPOPA has dubbed a "Braveheart maneuver" (trying to get concessions from your opponents to force you off the battlefield) or just an effort to elevate profile, as Jim Shella with WISH-TV suggests.

Before Gibson's entry, Evans had a hail mary-type long-shot chance at potentially garnering support for a plurality in an inverted Thomas Carcetti/The Wire scenario. But now that Gibson stepped in, he forces Evans to fight to preserve the segment of voters with no real connection to political folk but who think it's time for Indianapolis to have an African-American mayor.

Also, it's not clear who supports Evans' bid yet, nor will we find out immediately. Evans is not announcing his candidacy like Gibson, who drew at least 50 supporters to a rally; he is only handing over paper for said "exploratory committee," which makes it sound like Jose is two-stepping his way into the race. This late in the game, Evans cannot afford to be coy, and he should expect some political blowback from this effort. To paraphrase sage words once uttered by Democratic Party Chair Ed Treacy, "We need fewer candidates, not more."

But when praise is do, I give it, and here it is.

For months, Evans has been criticizing the Ballard Administration's handling of the water company, and he's been trying to publicly force the Mayor's Office to discuss what plans its has for a sale to Citizens Gas. I've seen at least three separate press releases for such calls that went unheeded and, perhaps in part because council Democrats just assumed Evans was seeking the limelight and going rogue, nobody signed on.

This is not to say none of the D's on the council weren't paying attention. Democratic City-County Council leaders have been working behind the scenes collecting information, believing that the Mayor would let them know before any real progress was made, and last week, the caucus introduced a resolution seeking that the mayor ensure a public process. That resolution was sent to the rules committee by Republicans, and the meeting at which it was to be heard last Tuesday was cancelled.

Now guess what? Democratic blogger Terry Burns reports there is now a "deal" that will be presented to the caucus this evening. The presentation was already made to Republicans on Monday, and I'm told that, but for Citizens and its attorneys, no presentation would have been made at all to Democrats.

There are all kinds of "teachable moments" here for my fellow Democrats, so absorb them:

1. You can't trust anything Mayor Ballard says about "transparency."

2. There's a fine line between paranoia and political astuteness. We like to believe when people say, "I'll let you know," and that's fine. But on this one, Jose Evans fell on the right side on the line. I admire the council resolution, but I can't help but wonder. If the entire caucus had "gone public" to the media, might an enterprising TV reporter have gone to the 25th Floor and asked, "Is city legal and/or an Indianapolis law firm representing Citizens Gas negotiating and/or writing up a purchase agreement as we speak? Doesn't the public have a right to be heard on this?"

3. We should remember to check our human nature, which often lets our feelings about the "who" prevail over our logic surrounding the "what." Even if Evans' critics think he got information wrong or did this for all the wrong reasons, he rightly saw a ram-rod coming.

4. The Ballard administration is ingenius at buying off individual Dems. Now that a deal seems to be a fait accompli, expect it to chisel off individual D councillors by offering a cut of the pie. Hopefully, D councillors will not fall for the siren song and completely fail to recognize potentially catastrophic long-term implications.

5. Finally, remember Luke 12:24: "You cannot serve two masters at the same time. You will hate one and love the other, or you will be loyal to the one and not care about the other." Every elected official or party with the mind to take advice from an attorney better memorize the attorney's client list because the Rules of Professional Conduct require allegiance to the client's interests to trump any political friendship you think you have.

As two of the Marion County Democratic Party's most prominent advisors and financiers serve with the law firm representing Citizens Gas, the effort to persuade D's to vote in favor might actually be led by my own party's consiglieres, bringing with them, not horse heads in beds, but statements like, "This is going to happen, so you need to get what you can as quickly as you can before there's nothing left."

Ahh, my kingdom for a modicum of Democratic solidarity even when the Mayor deals a bad hand. But, hey, politics isn't pretty, and somebody has to pay for the re-election campaigns.

Evans Mayoral Bid Curious, But His Water Company Meddling Dead-On

Councilors & Superbowl Tickets

Braveheart is one of my favorite movies. One of the most affecting scenes is when William Wallace realizes he's been betrayed by Robert the Bruce, a man he considered to be of high ideals, capable of leading Scotland to independence. Periodically, I take a gutshot like that from my own party.

My hope has been to minimize those angst-filled moments by administering "tough love." My hope has always been that maybe some Democrats will find their higher angels, lead by example, and bring this community out of the cynicism that permeates political life.

That need for "tough love" was never more apparent than when I read that 26 of 29 city-county councilors took the Colts up on their offer to acquire Superbowl tickets for the councilors at the $800 face value.

Senior Executive Vice-President for the Colts, Pete Ward, said this was done "as a show of appreciation for their public service." This is a ludicrously insulting quote. The Colts made the offer to curry favor with people who control the Colts financial future, and if you think otherwise, ask yourself why this offer wasn't extended to police officers, fire fighters, postal employees, and sanitation workers, among our many "public servants."

I have tremendous respect for many members on the city-county council. They work in a poorly-compensated, often thankless and immeasurably time-consuming job. But they chose to put their names on the ballot to serve, and respectfully, if our city-county councilors missed a meeting, most of us would never know, and in most cases, that absence wouldn't change anything. Can we say the same about our garbage or postal workers? Seriously, if the Colts are not kowtowing to voting power, what about the councilors service is so noteworthy? All the sitting or all the listening?

To my councilor friends, remember that leadership is a straight walk in the shoes of those you serve, not running in well-heeled circles. Leadership is holding your palm up instead of holding your hand out when perks are offered. Leadership is never being oblivious to a single instance of an obvious double standard. If you want a Superbowl ticket, go scrounge on Craig's List like the rest of us.

The Star reports that the Colts have no obligation to disclose who bought the tickets, and in truth, I'm grateful in not knowing. I don't think I could handle the disappointment.

Unfortunately, I don't expect I'll be permitted to stay ignorant. The questions will not stop until the media knows every person who took the tickets and the disposition of those tickets. So, to my council friends, if you are going to ignore the personal code of conduct component to this deal, at least don't be stupid on the politics.

Were I Democratic Party dictator of the universe, I'd corral everybody who bought the tickets, we'd sell them, and we'd donate all the profit collectively to the United Way of Greater Indianapolis or the Red Cross for relief to Hait. But as the only title I have is "party activist," I'll just implore all of my D colleagues to go to the game if you aren't donating all the proceeds to charity. I assure you that if you keep a single dime of profit, you're going to get hammered politically. And, frankly, you should be.

Scotland ultimately got its independence when Robert the Bruce became king. But that didn't happen until after the following exchange:

Robert Bruce, Sr: "All men betray. All men lose heart."

Robert the Bruce: "I don't want to lose heart. I want to believe, as he does."

So do I.

Councilors & Superbowl Tickets

Message to City-County Council: Don't Help!

It's pretty clear that Brendan O'Shaughnessy of the Indianapolis Star doesn't think much of the City-County Council's new ethics code.

Who can blame him?

The proposal gives all employees of the city-county carte blanche to vote on budgets, regardless of financial interest. Why this provision was included is obvious. Both Republicans and Democrats have several members who work for the city-county.

In fairness, I should point out that all legislative bodies can give themselves a pay raise for legislative work, which is certainly a "direct financial interest." We don't make that unethical. But maybe that's because we think the voters will take care of such staggeringly self-interested actions.

What about the more subtle ones? What about a police officer who votes for a massively-increased budget, knowing full well that increased salaries for all will follow? Or what about an employee who votes against across-the-board agency cuts for fear his job might be lost? How likely is the average citizen to know what has happened and respond accordingly?

Moreover, who can look at Monroe Gray's troubles and re-election and tell me citizens always police questionable conduct? Seriously, the bar for our ethics should be defined by which councilor's constituents are the most apathetic, "suckered," or "morally flexible?" Without a code, couldn't a guy consistently vote for his self-interest, make his constituents the beneficiary of questionable largesse, and never worry?

Sorry, but I will always believe that any thought about how I might benefit or suffer should not be part of the city-county councilor's deliberative process, and this code does nothing to stem those considerations. In fact, it explicitly authorizes them.

You see, the code also allows a councilor to vote on a matter if he or she stands to make $5,000 or less. It's unclear from the story whether this is an aggregate for the year, or per vote. Lord knows, I'm praying it's the former. Otherwise, we're going to lose our soul one chunk at a time.

You don't like the substance? Even the symbolic politics of this proposal was botched.

According to the Star, Bob Elrod, the council attorney, said the new code was not meant to suggest that a small benefit does not constitute a conflict of interest.

It suggests precisely that, Bob. Did anybody really think it wouldn't?

But here's my favorite part of the story:

Republican co-chairwoman Ginny Cain said the provision includes council members' spouses and dependent children. She said the intent, for instance, was to allow a council member's son to mow lawns in the neighborhood without having to investigate whether any neighbors have city contracts.

Whose son is getting FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS to cut grass? Uh...yeah, that would definitely be somebody trying to buy a city-county councilor through a family member because that "neighbor" certainly isn't paying the market rate!

Trying to inspire confidence, once again the city-county council just took away what we had left.

Message to City-County Council: Don't Help!