A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

Toll Road suit blocked

by 3 Comments

Judge Scopelitis issued an order requiring a $1.9 billion bond. The Indy Star story is here. I seem to recall that the statute allowing such a bond to be required also provides for an expedited appeal process.

Hopefull I’ll be able to post more before too long.

Update You’ll be happy to know that the state doesn’t have any public debt. (Decision at p. 18.) This conclusion is based, in part, by the fact that the General Assembly has appropriated money each year to pay unfunded liabilities such as the Teachers Retirement Fund. The Toll Road is not worth very much to the State, by contrast, because the State has not historically seen fit to raise tolls on the Toll Road.

The Court does not see fit to speculate on the consequences to the Toll Road valuation if the tolls were increased by the General Assembly (Decision at p. 21), but does see fit to speculate that Indiana would be stigmatized and not receive a comparable bid if litigation were allowed to move forward and Indiana was forced to rebid the lease at a later date. (Decision at p. 22-23.)

The Indiana Finance Authority is a “municipal corporation.” (Decision at p. 26) (nevermind its statewide scope.)

The Plaintiffs may proceed with the portions of the lawsuit challenging certain parts of HEA 1008-2005 as impermissible special legislation (e.g. the Perry Township provision.)

The bond is required because the Court decided Indiana doesn’t have any public debt, because the Court decided that selling something less than fee simple absolute rights in the Toll Road as a lease doesn’t constitute a “sale,” and because the Court decided that the Indiana Finance Authority is a municipal corporation.

Toll Road Privatization ruling expected today

by Leave a Comment

The Indy Star is reporting that a ruling is expected this afternoon from Judge Scopelitis in the toll road privatization case. The issue primarily before him at the moment is whether to require a case-killing bond that would prevent the challenge from being heard on the merits. The judge’s decision will likely be appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court on an expedited basis.

Pulaski County gets frosty response from USDOT

by 3 Comments

Pulaski County submitted a 285 page petition (pdf- long) to the USDOT requesting a change back to the eastern time zone. The transmittal letter is dated February 7, 2006.

The USDOT issued its response on May 22, 2006. Paul O’Malley accurately characterized the response as “frosty.”

The new petition follows the Department’s final rule by only a few weeks arid before the County had any experience with the new time zone changes that it solicited. Furthermore, the new petition conflicts with the County’s original petition and other information submitted to the docket in a rulemaking proceeding on time zone boundary changes in Indiana. The County Commissioners now have represented that they did not provide accurate information in their original petition. The new petition does not provide detailed information in support of its position or the sources for the information submitted.

The USDOT response goes on to compare and contrast the new petition with the original petition submitted requesting Central Time. For example, the original petitions states, “Industry receives and ships more goods and services to and from the Chicago business hubs than to any of the Eastern hubs” while the new petition states “85% of their vendors are in the Eastern Time Zone, and 80 to 95% of customers are in the Eastern Time Zone.”

At the end of the letter we find this:

In a May 1, 2006 teleconference with Departmental officials during a Commission Meeting, the County Commissioners represented that they did not provide accurate information in their original petition and misled the Department in order to strengthen their case for Central Time.

We were disappointed to learn of these assertions and the County’s approach to the time zone issue. Both for legal and policy reasons, the truthfulness of information submitted to the United States government is of critical importance. Indeed, it is legally required under 18 U.S.C. 1001. The Department takes seriously the review and consideration of any petition seeking a change in time zone boundaries and relies upon the accuracy of data and information supporting the petition. Therefore, we expect that the information and data you provide in response to this letter will be both accurate and truthful.

That’s a stunning bit of candor from the Pulaski County Commissioners, if the letter accurately represents the conversation.

The bulk of the letter identifies what the USDOT sees as deficiencies in the new petition and requests specific information in order to better evaluate Pulaski’s request to be placed on the Eastern Time Zone.

Sen. Lugar saves the day

by 4 Comments

Not politically consequential, but a nice story all the same. The Evansville Courier Press has an article about the (Evansville) Thump Squad, a drum squad, that had gone to D.C. to compete in the Fifth Annual Afterschool for All Challenge. They competed in that event but had apparently planned an encore in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. They were told they could not play inside because it would be too noisy.

Contacted about the problem during his meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Sen. Lugar found the band a new venue in a park. Lugar then showed up for the performance and took pictures and shook hands. A nice bit of politicking by the Senator.

Mr. Daniels goes to Washington

by 11 Comments

Our very Jimmy Stewartesque Governor went to Washington to answer a few questions about the Toll Road privatization. Sylvia Smith has the article.

The only exchange of consequence appears to have been:

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., demanded to know why, if operating the Toll Road could produce enough money to pay the state a lump sum and still make a profit, Indiana didn’t do it itself.

“I like collecting interest better than paying interest,” Daniels said after scolding DeFazio for describing Macquarie-Cintra’s anticipated profit as “excess.”

“It’s not a dirty word in our state, congressman,” Daniels said.

DeFazio suggested the lease-holder will raise tolls, something the state could have done to generate more income. “You’re saying there’s no political will to raise the tolls,” he said. “Are we outsourcing political will to a private entity?”

“I don’t expect you to understand our state,” Daniels said. “Governors of both parties declined to raise tolls by one cent since 1985. You make an assumption about human nature that all future governors will be different than all past governors.”

Translation: Hoosiers won’t like me if I raise their toll taxes directly. If I do it indirectly, the rubes won’t figure it out until after 2008.

Naming names

by Leave a Comment

The Richmond Palladium-Item has had a dust-up concerning its policy with respect to publishing the names of suspects. The background to this dust-up concerns an incident that took place on May 13 involving Scott Porter, a prominent business man in Richmond. The police investigation suggests that he was driving near the Olde Richmond Inn when two couples going to prom were walking by. Porter apparently made some “inappropriate” remarks about the girls, their dates attempted to defend their honor, Porter flashed a pistol (Porter says it was actually a cell phone), got of the car and kicked one of the boys “in the groin.”

In today’s story, the Pal-Item made a statement concerning its policy with respect to naming suspects:

The Palladium-Item does not print the names of alleged victims of violence. Nor is it the newspaper’s policy to print the name of suspects before they are charged with any crime.

Apparently the failure to name this particular name riled up some of the readers who thought that Mr. Porter was being given special treatment. This led to 2 Pal-Item editor’s blog entries defending the practice.

With respect to the policy, the editor (somewhat jokingly) compared it to the Ten Commandments:

What many people suggest is that we break our policy. But policy is an institutional form of ethics and morality and their argument is akin to suggesting that we have morals but break them when the situation calls for it.

It’s like saying that the Ten Commandments forbid adultery but I can commit adultery if Angelina Jolie has stopped by my house. (Now, don’t think I wouldn’t give it serious consideration. But that’s another blog entirely.)

Trouble is, they had already published Mr. Porter’s name the day before:

NEWS: Police hand prosecutor results from investigation of local real estate agent

Local real estate agent J. Scott Porter has been the target of an investigation into allegations of battery and criminal recklessness for the past 10 days. Police sent the results of their probe to Wayne County Prosecutor Michael Shipman on Tuesday.

Originally published May 23, 2006

That link has since been pulled. So I don’t know if it was a mistake, momentary vacillation, or what. Richmond area blogger Chris Hardie noted some big holes (see comments to 5/24/06 11:00 entry) in the Palladium-Item’s policy.

I did want to ask if you could speak (or, type) to the difference between what it means to be “under police investigation” and just “under suspicion of wrongdoing”?

Using some of the Don Holbrook / EDC events (and your coverage of them) from earlier this year as a contrast, it would seem that someone who has allegedly done wrong (criminal, moral, or otherwise) enters into some sort of special protection (in the newspaper’s eye) at the point they start being investigated by official law enforcement. But up until that point, they’re not protected…?

If someone has just allegedly done something wrong but is not yet even (or ever) under police investigation, are they fair game for greater exposure in your pages as a result? Does the Pal-Item have a policy related to publishing someone’s name as a part of allegations against them, even though it may not be a matter of illegal activities? Or is this a case-by-case editorial decision?

Incidentally, I’m not blowing anybody’s cover. Porter was charged with 5 felonies today and the Palladium-Item published the name.

Noblesville rejects Fishers airport

by 7 Comments

I include this story by Bill Ruthhart over an airport issue between Fishers and Noblesville in part because I’m interested in urban development and transportation issues and in larger part because I’m playing with Google Earth.

The Noblesville City Council declined a proposal by Fishers to move the Metropolitan Airport. Apparently Fishers envisioned the current site as a future commercial hub that could include a park-and-ride facility for a possible rapid transit line to Indianapolis.

Noblesville doesn’t want the new airport in its backyard. Fishers officials and Hamilton County officials had envisioned relocating the airport to a 1,000 acre site on the county’s eastern edge. The Indianapolis Airport Authority has said that it would need Noblesville’s approval to make such a move. Because that approval will not be forthcoming, Fishers has indicated it will look into potentially moving it to Madison County which is directly to the east of Hamilton County.

Brayton: Religion & the Majoritarian Impulse

by 12 Comments

Ed Brayton has a good blog post entitled “Religion and the Majoritarian Impulse” in which he discusses the case of Russell County High School in Kentucky. Apparently they had a tradition where the students elected a “graduation chaplain” who led a Christian prayer at the graduation ceremony. A Muslim student who was graduating filed suit to stop that tradition and a judge issued an injunction against it.

So instead, in the middle of the principal’s opening remarks, 200 students stood up, interrupted the proceedings, and recited the Lord’s prayer, prompting a standing ovation from most of those in attendance. That act received praise from the school principal and superintendant.

The Superintendent labeled the mass defiance an example of “critical thinking” that demonstrates an ability to make compelling decisions on one’s own.

The reaction didn’t stop there. The students booed the student who brought suit as he received his diploma and walked across the stage.

Mr. Brayton goes on:

Now, whether the judge’s ruling was correct or not is not the issue here; it’s a close call from a con law standpoint. But with all of the fervent cheering going on for these kids on the right side of the internet, I must dissent. I think what they did was act like a bully. On the religionlaw listserv, one enthusiastic supporter of action praised kids for celebrating “the spirit of liberty”. David Guinn of Baylor law school gave what seems to me to be the perfect response. He wrote:

First, the students (as approved by Prof. Duncan) are using prayer not as a religious devotion but as a political act — to express their disapproval of the one student and the “unelected judiciary” and as a weapon against others that don’t share in that faith. That strikes me as sacralege as well as a perversion.

Second, why is it necessary to make these prayers public in a public forum? This sounds a little too much like the hypocrites of Mt. 6:5 If it is a matter of needing community, why not a community made up of fellow believers rather than demanding the audience of those who might not believe (or believe as they do)?

While it may be “their” commencement, it is also the commencement of all of the other students and their families present. Should everyone be allowed to interrupt the service and impose their religious exhortation on everyone else?

Graduations frequently involve not just commencement, but a series of celebrations over the course of the weekend. Why not reserve religious celebrations for a separate ceremony shared among their community of faith? The only justification I can come up with is the belief that their faith is so weak that it must be endorsed by the school in the public ceremony.

I find the whole thing offensive and sad…..

I’ve probably quoted way too much, but the post is so dead on. I’m particularly struck by David Guinn’s statement that seems to capture so much of what is wrong with public proclamations of religious belief these days: The proclaimers are using prayer not as a religious devotion but as a political act and as a weapon against others that don’t share in that faith. It is sacrilege and perversion.

Bipartisanship

by 8 Comments

Mary Dalrymple has an article on the weekend raid by the FBI on the Congressional offices of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA). I’m a bit torn on this issue. On the one hand, unless there is an extremely significant wrinkle explaining why he would be accepting a bag of cash ($100,000 in $100 bills) from an FBI informant, then the Democrats should be howling for their colleague to resign. On the other hand, the idea of the executive branch tossing the office of a member of the legislative branch has disturbing implications. It was refreshing to hear that the Bush administration at least bothered to get a search warrant for this search. Being a member of Congress apparently has its privileges. Being an innocent citizen of the U.S. who uses a telephone: not so much.

I am a little annoyed that it takes an FBI search in Congress to get members of Congress interested in the Bill of Rights again. When it’s the rabble citizenry being searched you hear a bunch of “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of.” When it’s an apparently corrupt member of Congress, suddenly the Constitution becomes a sacred document again.

Government records & nondisclosure agreements

by 1 Comment

Advance Indiana has a post on a public records matter (that was also flagged by  a commenter here). A former city employee of the City of Crawfordsville brought an EEOC charge against Mayor Zumer. That matter was settled, but the terms of the settlement include a nondisclosure clause. The AP covers the story here.

The settlement was reached Monday during a mediation session held by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission involving Mayor John Zumer, former assistant Summar Keesee and their attorneys.

“The case is resolved,” said Keesee’s attorney, Bruce Petit. “There is a nondisclosure required in the settlement, so we really can’t say more than we’ve resolved it to a mutual satisfaction.”

I suppose the attorneys are free to decline to comment, but the Indiana Court of Appeals recently held that a settlement agreement entered into by a governmental entity or its insurer is a public record. Knightstown Banner, LLC v. Town of Knightstown, 838 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005).

The Knightstown case appears to be similar to the Crawfordsville case. The Knightstown case involved a police dispatcher who alleged sexual harassment. The case was settled, but the Town of Knightstown refused to disclose the terms of settlement because of a confidentiality agreement. I don’t see any reason that the Crawfordsville settlement’s confidentiality provisions would hold up where the Knightstown provisions did not.