iPOPA Schools You on "Expectations Game" and Greg Ballard's Thin Line Between Hero and Con Artist

People who follow politics know the most consistent foe for an elected official or candidate is the “expectations game.”

If expectations get set high, the best case scenario is an “as good as expected,” which means you can never actually “win.” If they get set low, you might hold your own with a seasoned opponent just by asking him, “Can I call ya, Joe?” winking, and uttering a complete sentence.

In other words, as paradoxical as this sounds, having people expect nothing from you is great. But here’s an iPOPA corollary. If done right, playing up a catastrophe that isn’t is just as valuable.

Think about it.

You go to a restaurant, and they say you can’t be seated for an hour. But the next thing you know, your little chimichanga-shaped beeper is lighting up 30 minutes later. Or your auto mechanic says, “This will cost $600,” but when the works gets done, it’s only $425. Awesome, right?

Now imagine the scenario where a 3rd party, the manager, steps in at the restaurant and says, “Your wait is an hour? That’s won’t do at all. (To hostess) I want these folks to be seated within 30 minutes!” Or the body shop chief says, “We’re going to cut this bill to $425!” You’d love those people, right? But what if you found out later that the restaurant knew the wait was really probably going to be around 15-20 minutes and the mechanic really had the cost pegged at $350? Wouldn’t you feel suckered?

***

So I’m with my little man at the Marion County main library about two months ago, and as we're walking out, I see somebody I know on the library board photo. Two days later, I see this person, and I mention I was just at the Glendale branch, and that I hoped they could avoid closing it because it was jam-packed. The person responds that (s)he looked at the books and so has another "well-informed individual" and there are cuts to be had to keep the libraries open. I ask for confirmation, and I got what I felt was a pretty resounding expression of confidence.

That was a staggering revelation to me because I’d read the horror stories just like you all about the impending doom. I started wondering about who has a vested interest in claiming impending tragedy that really isn’t? My first thought was that this was an effort to sway referendum voters on whether they really want permanent property tax caps (more on that coming to you later). But then the Mayor swoops in with a solution that isn’t really, and as Democratic mayoral candidate Melina Kennedy pointed out, the financial pinch won't hit until 2014, so it's not like we're going to turn Keystone Avenue in front of the Glendale branch into to a Half-Price Books.

***

So next I hear Indygo is about to be reduced to apparently one bus that just drives in circles from 10th and College to West and Washington. [Okay, it wasn't really that, but it sounded equally cataclysmic.] The next thing I know, the Mayor swoops in with "solutions" that aren't really. I kid you not, his ideas are: (1) tap a $5 million Indygo line of credit without knowing how it will be paid back; (2) shift $1.6 million that has been set aside for insurance to cover lawsuits; and (3) take $3 million from capital improvements (i.e., making the buses less rickety) and use it for operating costs. And for this, the Star gives Ballard the headline: "Ballard Says City Will Help Indygo Pay Expenses." Wow.

My first thought was that Indygo must really know its drivers to put aside that kind of cash for liability. But here's the Mayor, deciding they’ll use this cash to keep the company operational instead of waiting for lawsuits that might never happen. Brilliant! Thank God Ballard is on the 25th Floor because certainly nobody associated with Indygo could have ever come up with "borrow, raid the reserves, and spend our legal funds and pray we hit fewer pedestrians this year."

My point is this … even though I know the economy is bad and dollars are probably tight in most places, after the Mayor's CIB inflated its deficit figures, because of most likely inflated Pacer operating losses, and because of the episodes above, I now find myself suspicious of the books of any entity that the Mayor controls directly or by appointment power or for whom he shills. They keep, curiously, putting him in a position to "save the day" only for us to later learn the day didn't really need saving to the degree claimed or that the saving was just for a day, not a long-term solution.

Conspiratorial? Alright, I admit it. But explain this. Mayor Ballard said he would go into the city and cut 10% of its budget. He hasn't come close. He smashed Bart Peterson for passing an increase in the County Option Income Tax (COIT). But notice he kept the money. Insiders will tell that if Peterson wouldn't have done the COIT, the Indiana General Assembly (cough - Luke Kenley) wouldn't have authorized a state takeover of police and fire pensions, which unloaded a huge burden on the city's finances. In addition, you have a massive federal influx of dollars, which I would wager means that if you add all revenue streams, Greg Ballard has more dollars at his disposal than any Mayor in Indianapolis history. (I'm going to get these numbers!)

So why is the Mayor raising taxes on almost every service provider in the county, and why do we need an imprudent, back-door tax increase in the form of a $170 million bond issue just to fund sidewalk repair? (I still don't know anybody who can say specifically how the separate $262 million from the back-door-tax-hike Cit Gas purchase of the water and wastewater operations will be spent).

Sorry, but, yet again, something doesn't add up here.

In the Ballard Superman story, maybe truth is the kryptonite, which is exactly why the administration, quite frequently, seems to have it tucked away in a lead box.

iPOPA Schools You on "Expectations Game" and Greg Ballard's Thin Line Between Hero and Con Artist

Is Judge James Payne Politically Savvy Enough to Be Governor?!?

Sometimes when you watch political events, you can't help but speculate on what goes on behind the scenes. This is true of the debate over an ombudsman for the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS).

With the support of DCS Director, Judge James Payne, State Representative Charlie Brown's (D-Gary) ombudsman bill (HB 1602) cleared the House 98-0. This should have spelled trouble to advocates. You get unanimous support for resolutions like, "We declare clear air is sorta nice," not on bills giving power to dig into the inner workings of a governmental agency, and definitely not from the guy who runs that agency.

"This bill must hamstring the ombudsman," I told myself as I read it. Yep. Feeble. Not completely terrible, but gravely flawed. The keys to having a good ombudsman are: (1) independence; (2) access to needed information; and (3) public accountability, be it to the actual public or their elected representatives.

HB 1602 failed on the first count by (1) giving the Governor the authority to appoint and remove the ombudsman at his whim and (2) housing the ombudsman office under the Department of Administration, an agency controlled by the Governor. Ideally, an ombudman would be appointed by legislative leaders in consultation with the Governor.

Though he left appointing authority with the Governor, Senator Tim Lanane (D-Anderson) authored a superior bill. Using the Inspector General statute as a guide, Lanane's bill states that an ombudsman, once appointed by the Governor, would serve a term of years equal to that of the Governor. In addition, he or she could only be removed for malfeasance, and his or her salary could not be cut during the term of service. Senator Lanane wasn't reinventing the independence wheel; his bill drew from Federalist Paper No. 48. How could these notions be controversial, unless your goal is to NOT provide independent review or investigation? His bill never moved.

On access, HB 1602 had no subpoena power for third-party records, and it only permited access to records from governmental agencies. On public accountability, the bill required the ombudsman to report to the complainant only. But there was no requirement for even a cursory result of the investigation to be provided to members of the Indiana General Assembly, or the public, even if the complainant agreed. Why not permit legislators to review the reports for their constituents? (Of course, I suppose the complainants could "go public" with their results).

So, a frail bill went to the senate judiciary committee, and inexplicably, got weakened. In the senate version, the ombudsman reported directly to the FSSA commissioner. BUT (and here's the weird part), the duties of the ombudsman, which initially included nothing more than "investigate complaints" and "write a report," are expanded to include:

(1) establish a public education program to secure and ensure the legal rights of children;

(2) periodically review DCS policies and procedures, with a view toward the safety and welfare of children

(3) recommend changes in procedure for investigating report of abuse or neglect and overseeing the welfare of children under juvenile court jurisdiction; and my personal favorite...

(4) examine policies and procedures and evaluate the effectiveness of the child protection system, specifically the roles of DCS, the court, the medical community, service providers, guardians ad litem, CASA, and law enforcement agencies. (If this last one isn't an effort by DCS to give the ombudsman the authority to throw blame on everybody else, I don't know what is!).

This amended bill passed 9-0, but instead of going to the Senate floor, it got re-routed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Kenley scheduled a hearing, at which Representative Brown testified that all of the amendments in the Senate version were made after consultation with DCS.

WHAT?!?!? Why would DCS EXPAND the ombudsman's statutory duties?

Stay with me. If you limit an ombudsman's authority to JUST investigating complaints, that's what he or she MUST do. Give him broader authority to tweak your internal operations, and he or she can basically do whatever he or she wants. What starts out as oversight of DCS ends up being a potential $454,000 allocation for additional DCS staff. The ombudsman can even take this money and do a PR campaign to recruit more guardian ad litem volunteers.

Were I a cynic (which is like saying, "were I me"), I would point to the political genius of Judge Payne and advise that this man has the savvy to run for Governor. Judge Payne clearly smelled the air of ombudsman inevitability. As the advocates gained steam in their rock pushing, he ran alongside voicing Mark Anthony-style support, and at the key moment, he redirected the rock to a new target.

At the appropriations hearing, Judge Payne said DCS supported the bill, but any objective observer could tell he didn't, as he undercut his own testimony by telling Senator Kenley that he understood the budget is tight and funding the ombudsman will be difficult. It's a wink and nod between two political heavyweights, and it was breath-takingly effective. At the end of the hearing, Senator Kenley killed HB 1602 by failing to put it to a vote.

As I testified after Judge Payne on the bill, though, I found myself in a weird place...agreeing with Senator Kenley's ultimate decision. To do the ombudsman function meaningfully, you have to have a decent budget, and we're talking about $150,000. I realize in the moment that certain death for this bill is best, and I'm tempted as I'm leaving the table to blurt out, "Give the $150,000 to Child Advocates!" (At least then we can get guardian ad litems on all Marion County CHINS cases from the start).

I have no sadness that this bill has died. Sham review or investigation is the same as no review or investigation, in my mind.

But I realize that maybe Judge Payne did his job TOO well. Had the watered down bill passed, when advocates asked for tweaking next year, legislators would have likely said, "Why are you still crying?!? We gave you a bill last year!?!"

At least now advocates can try to draft a reinvigorated bill. But advocates have a worthy adversary. It would be foolish to underestimate him.

Is Judge James Payne Politically Savvy Enough to Be Governor?!?

Mayor Ballard is a Coward!

Yes, Your Honor. I'm calling you out. By name. You are a coward with a logic deficit.

In the most insane example of having your cake and eating it, too, you had the audacity to glamour shot your way into Luke Kenley's press conference about the CIB bail out proposal only to offer the following, which comes from today's Indianapolis Star:

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard, who joined Kenley at a news conference Wednesday at which the plan was outlined, wouldn't say he endorsed the details but said he supported the need to preserve the convention and entertainment business in Downtown Indianapolis.

WHAT?!?!?!?

If you're not there to endorse THIS deal, what deal are you there endorsing? We don't know. Because you won't say. And you won't say because you're a coward. You KNOW you came into office on a platform of lower taxes, and here you are, ready to stick it to us already to make sure we take care of billionaires who pay millionaires to play a game.

Let me be fair, you also said the following:

"This is not about any individual teams or anything. This is about Downtown Indianapolis. This is about the convention business. This is about $3.5 billion worth of convention business, 66,000 jobs in Central Indiana related to hospitality -- that's what this is about," Ballard said. "We must maintain this economic engine."

That's the illogical part. We COULD make up the entire deficit by raising admission per ticket at Conseco events. You know why we won't do that? We're told it would be too costly. People will stop going to Pacer games. But isn't this Republican Party orthodoxy? Raise taxes, lose voters? Raise prices, lose customers? And yet, here sits a Republican Mayor saying that by RAISING hospitality taxes to one of the highest IN THE NATION, somehow we're going to save our convention employees. (In fairness to the Mayor, his non-approach benefits millionaires primarily at the expense of average folk who will take the hit on these regressive tax increases, so that part is consistent with Republican philosophy).

NO convention group books here because they want to go to a Pacer game. They book because we have a lot of low-cost but nice hotel space, nice restaurants and nightlife to enjoy, proximity between hotel and convention space, and a clean and interesting cityscape (a/k/a "ambiance").

But, Mayor, you let Luke Kenley take the largest competitive arrow out of your quiver and break it over his knee before your very eyes. (Seriously, if you're currently in high school taking your first economics class, can you PLEASE call the Mayor's Office?)

You see, Mr. Mayor, in economics we have a notion called "competition." If person A can get something CHEAPER from city B than from City I (for incompetent), they will. This means And the 66,000 people you claim to protect are all laid off because NOBODY is coming here.

Here are two other concepts you might find "neat." Demand for a good can be "elastic" or "inelastic." If demand is "inelastic," people will buy even if the prices rise insanely. Medical care is a great example. Most people like to live, so they'll sell their second-born to finance a life-saving surgery, even if you double the cost. But if demand is "elastic," an increase in price means people won't buy the good or service anymore even with a slight increase. You know what makes demand "elastic?" Having options to do other things.

So, say for instance I'm already thinking about not eating out anymore because things are tight, and NOW I'm going to have to pay even MORE, not only in downtown but everywhere in Marion County. Guess what I'll do? Eat out less. So NOW your expected new tax money never shows up, and all you've done in the mean time is hurt the very restaurants you claim you're trying to help by keeping the Pacers downtown.

See what you've done? You've stood silent while the most powerful Republican at the Statehouse save Mitch Daniels constructed a fix on a shaky foundation. But the truth is, this is what Kenley and you wanted to do all along. You'll put this ill-thought out bailout into play, SAY "Mission Accomplished," and you'll pray that President Obama gets the economy moving. Then if it happens, you act like you're geniuses. If it doesn't, you'll blame Obama for the "sluggish national economy," though we'll all know the truth. Whatever protection of, or growth of, our "hospitality economy" you could have afforded RIGHT NOW was stagnated because one of your top advisors runs in a millionaire boys club. How grand. How Bob Grand.

Mayor Ballard is a Coward!