Brent Waltz has been sentenced to ten months in prison on federal campaign finance charges. You can read about the details of the indictment here and here. But, I’m going to summarize it as Waltz getting casino money and being part of a straw man donor scheme to funnel that money to his 2016 primary campaign to be the Republican nominee for the Ninth District Congressional seat. Waltz lost that primary to “Tennessee” Trey Hollingsworth. Waltz ultimately only picked up 13% of the vote in the primary which included four other candidates.

The reason I want to underscore that the money was connected to the casino industry is that Waltz became a state senator after unseating Larry Borst in the 2004 primary. Borst had served for a decades and was chair of the Senate Finance Committee. As long-time State House reporter, Jim Shella observed in a 2020 IBJ column:

Waltz was first elected to the state Senate in 2004 after he won a GOP primary against powerful Finance Committee Chairman Larry Borst. Borst was opposed to more gambling, and Waltz had the support of Republicans who saw Borst as an obstacle. There has been an open discussion in Statehouse hallways ever since about Waltz’s ethics.

I won’t go so far as to say that Borst would be gratified by Waltz’s conviction and sentencing. But his concerns about the gaming industry in Indiana certainly seem to have been proven valid.

To the workers at Carrier who will keep their jobs, the Trump/Pence deal to persuade Carrier to export fewer jobs away from Indiana is big and good news. In the larger scheme of things, however, this is mostly political theater. During the campaign, Carrier’s exit became symbolic of a larger problem – the loss of blue collar, manufacturing jobs that paid well. The deal addresses, to some extent, the symbol but is probably a drop in the bucket in terms of the real issue.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Indiana officials have agreed to give United Technologies $7 million in tax breaks over a decade.

United Technologies will invest roughly $16 million in its Indiana facilities, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The deal would save 800 jobs from the Indianapolis furnace plant and 300 research and development positions that were not going to go to Mexico, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The media coverage of Carrier’s exit and now its coverage of this deal is probably out sized. Trump and his supporters will crow about how he’s delivering on promises. Trump’s detractors will complain that the incentives create a moral hazard for companies to reap financial incentives by threatening to move their companies (not unlike what sports franchise owners do with stadium deals, it occurs to me.) Both sides will (probably with justification) accuse the other of hypocrisy.

Around and around we go.

James Duffy, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, has an article on the increase in abuse directed at Latinos, blacks, and Muslims in Fort Wayne, and an increase in anxiety felt by members of those groups.

Fort Wayne has seen incidents. The day of the rally, a garage on the city’s northeast side was spray-painted with the word “Trump,” and the house was later shot at.

. . .

Guillermo “Memo” Contreras, a deejay on Fort Wayne’s Spanish-language radio station La Unica 102.3 FM, said he receives at least seven phone calls a day now from parents whose children ask to be picked up from school because they are being bullied over Trump’s promise to build a wall along the southern border of the U.S. and Mexico.

Contreras, whose radio program runs 7 a.m. to 11 a.m., said he rarely received such phone calls from listeners before the election. One parent told him her child was told by a teacher not to speak Spanish.

. . .

Graffiti spray painted at the city pool in Tell City, Indiana

The attacks the Muslim population is seeing are “a bit more verbal than anything else,” said Michael Spath, executive director at the Indiana Center for Middle East Peace in Fort Wayne. “Intimidation. (Comments such as) ‘you’re not wanted here’ and vulgar language are being used.”

. . .

Attending the forum was John Houser, principal of Wayne High School, whose student-athletes were subjected to an incident at a Nov. 8 girls basketball game at Norwell High School.

A cheering section started chanting “Build That Wall,” said Superintendent Scott Mills of Northern Wells Community Schools. The action was immediately stopped by high school principal Mark Misch, he said.

Fort Wayne is not the only Indiana area experiencing such things. For example, in Bean Blossom a church was vandalized with spray paint saying “Heil Trump,” “Fag Church,” and a swastika. In Tell City, the pool was vandalized with a swastika and “Trump”.

It doesn’t take a lot of this kind of thing to make a members of a non-majority group feel extremely uneasy. And that’s not just them being delicate or fragile. We really aren’t that far historically from a time when white men felt comfortable having their pictures taken at a lynching.

What’s going on with all of this? Is it a new trend, a precursor to more frequent and more violent events to come? Is it just a few bad apples, being sensationalized by media outlets (mine included)? Are minority groups panicking more than the events warrant?

I couldn’t say. Growing up, I — and I think probably most Americans — were indoctrinated with the tale of Nazi Germany as a cautionary tale. It’s been overdone for sure. Mike Godwin was getting at that when he invented Godwin’s Law. Every Internet discussion thread devolved into Nazi comparisons. That said, when a political leader stokes ethnic resentment for political power, it’s tough not to draw comparisons. On the other hand, the United States in the late 2010s is not in the same dire economic state as 1930s Germany, nor are we suffering from postwar humiliation. So, the hope would be that we are not as vulnerable.

Similarly, I have no real ability to judge the reaction of minority groups who feel threatened by these incidents. I’m an upper middle class white professional in a community that is relatively diverse and prosperous. West Lafayette has a diverse nonwhite population, but because of the presence of Purdue, many members of that population are of a professional class. We talk of race and wealth in our politics, but we very often do not discuss social class as a thing distinct from those factors. And I think that creates something of a blind spot in our political discussions.

What should we do about this? Again, I’m not full of answers. Specific instances should, where criminal, be investigated and prosecuted. Noncriminal acts should, at a minimum, trigger social disapproval. Beyond that, Trump supporters of good will should avoid the temptation to perceive discussion of these issues as a personal attack and reflexively dismiss them as unimportant.

For my part, I think I need to do a better job of respecting the feelings of those who feel attacked and marginalized in a lot of ways – whether it’s the black man who fears the police, the woman who fears sexual assault, American who fears terrorist attacks, the gun owner who fears crime, the Christian or Muslim who fears the loss of religious freedoms, or whatever it might be. It’s easy for me to sit back and philosophically note that the statistics don’t necessarily support the level of fear. The fear is, nevertheless, very real to the person experiencing it. The question is what can I (and what can we) do to reduce this pervasive anxiety. Compassion for the person experiencing the anxiety is one reason to address it. But the larger reason is that the anxiety is corroding our social institutions and our relationships to one another.

Allow me to present your new right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, added to Article 1, section 39 of our Constitution by a 2.3 million Hoosiers.

Sec. 39. Hunting and fishing

¯\_(?)_/¯

 

 

 

A friend of mine asked whether this amendment could be construed to eliminate licensing. My response, probably not, but maybe! The actual language says:

Section 39. (a) The right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife:
(1) is a valued part of Indiana’s heritage; and
(2) shall be forever preserved for the public good
(b) The people have a right, which includes the right to use traditional methods,to hunt,fish, and harvest wildlife,subject only to the laws prescribed by the General Assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the General Assembly to:
(1) promote wildlife conservation and management; and
(2) preserve the future of hunting and fishing.
(c) Hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.
(d) This section shall not be construed to limit the application of any provision of law relating to trespass or property rights.

Does that eliminate licensing? Let’s work through it.

On the one hand, it says people have the right to hunt and fish. It’s a right. Can’t stop me from exercising my right, you statist bastards!

On the other hand, it says that the right is subject to the laws of the General Assembly. Whoops. The statist bastards win again. 

But, on the third hand, it says that the laws have to be passed “to promote conservation and management & preserve the future of hunting and fishing.” So, maybe someone could argue that the licensing law isn’t “to promote conservation, management, and/or the future or hunting and fishing.” Rights restored!

BUT, on the fourth hand, this section “shall not be construed to limit the application of any provision relating to property rights.” A license is a form of property right. Is the creation of a restriction that limits the ability to hunt & fish but, in doing so, creates a property right sufficiently “related to” property rights? Maybe!

Another friend asked whether maybe “traditional methods” could mean sharpened sticks and maybe bows. Maybe! Sticks are safe. Bows could be a little too modern.

And we haven’t even gotten to the question of what the hell it means to “harvest wildlife.”

Not sure how much appetite there is for this, but just in case folks need to vent, here is a thread.

Millions of people are pouring out their emotions on the Internet about this electoral result. The anxiety and fear is understandable. So is the resentment.

I know there are people I like who voted for him. They still regard themselves as decent people even though they have done so. Those who view Trump more like I do wonder how these seemingly decent people can be so reckless with their vote, ignoring his belligerence, his incessant lying, his degradation of women, and his stated intent to discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs, and still regard themselves as good citizens and good people.

Somehow, for a lot of them, I believe it comes down to holding the inconsistent ideas that he’s somehow a “straight shooter” while, at the same time, believing that he doesn’t mean what he says. Then they project their hopes to conjure up a vision of what he “really” intends to do. It’s all well and good for a fairly privileged white guy like myself to spend my time worrying about understanding my fellow white (mostly male) voters. A lot of legal and governmental mischief can be worked before I feel it in any direct way. There are plenty of citizens who will, understandably, not give a shit what kind of fever dream turns the reality of Trump into something remotely acceptable as an electoral choice. These citizens live closer to the edge and will be the first ones to get hurt when Trump’s lack of understanding and/or lack of emotional discipline has tragic consequences.

For the people on the front line, I don’t have too much to offer. As Joe Hill said, “don’t mourn, organize.” For the privileged among us, I can say from prior experience, that disengaging from media and focusing on your immediate circumstances can offer some comfort. When you spend time worrying about national or international media (be it traditional television, social media, or whatever), it’s entirely possible to miss the joy of life all around you in the form of family, friends, community, home, hobbies, and whatever else is close at hand that brings happiness. In fact, the profitability of that media pretty much depends on it. As it happens, this blog was born of my despondency over the 2004 election. I disengaged for a week or two, thought about my interests, and then re-engaged with the creation of “Masson’s Blog,” focusing more on state issues and specific legislation. Whatever else has happened, this blog has brought me a great deal of joy over the years. Negative events often contain the seeds of something good. We should still try to avoid the negative, but when it comes, try to avoid despair. As Bruce Cockburn said, you’ve gotta kick at the darkness ’til it bleeds daylight.

Anyway, that’s all I have for the moment.

(Note 9-7-2020: This entry is from 2016 but is currently coming up in searches for the 2020 West Lafayette School Board. I am a candidate in 2020 as well. This is a good post, please read it! But for information about 2020, check out https://masson.us/schoolboard.)

So, I’m on the ballot this year. I am one of five candidates for four positions on the West Lafayette School Board. I have posted about this in other places, but I don’t believe I have said anything here on my blog. I think it’s probably a good idea to set out the basics of my background and my reasons for running.

Who I am

My name is Doug Masson, and I am running for a position on the West Lafayette Community School Corporation Board of Trustees. I was selected by the Board to fill a vacated position in September of 2015 and have served on the board since then.

I am married with two children. My wife, Amy, owns Sumy Designs, a web design business. My kids are in the 6th and 7th grades at West Lafayette. I am a local attorney and small business owner. My law firm is Hoffman, Luhman & Masson in downtown Lafayette. A large part of my practice consists of serving as the Tippecanoe County attorney, advising the County on a wide variety of issues related to municipal government. I am originally from Richmond, Indiana, graduated from Richmond High School, went to college at Miami University in Ohio, and graduated in 1996 from the Indiana University School of Law. My first job was as a staff attorney for the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency, providing advice and drafting legislation for the Indiana General Assembly. In 1999, I started working in Tippecanoe County and have been here ever since.

Why I think the job is important

I think excellent public schools are critical, not only to the children being educated, but also to the communities in which they are located. Our kids need a world-class education to compete and thrive in today’s world. That means the ability to obtain and excel at the kinds of jobs they will want. But part of a world-class education should also consist of developing the qualities we will want them to have as citizens. Most of all, it means giving them the tools to grow into well-rounded individuals who lead lives that bring them joy and improve the lives of those around them.

In addition to the benefits public schools bring the students, these schools are an important part of the social fabric that turns a group of individuals into a community. Quality schools are a very important element in making West Lafayette a place where we want to live. Our schools are social hubs, a source of pride, and part of the economic engine of the community.

The teachers, administrators, and past board members have made West Lafayette schools one of the best school systems in Indiana, and a top school in the nation. It is my goal to continue this tradition. My wife, my mother, and my brother have all been teachers. I have not. This means that I respect what teachers do, and I recognize that teaching is a profession with a specialized set of skills. Because this is a public school, it requires public oversight. However, as a layman with no expertise in education, I believe school board members should give due regard to the specialized training of teaching professionals. My goal is to preserve our school system as one where teachers can focus on educating our children, and where our children will receive the instruction and opportunities that will enable them to succeed.

What needs to be done

Re-authorize the General Fund referendum

When the State took over school funding responsibilities from local government, our school board and superintendent recognized that, if action was not taken locally, the State’s funding decisions would be catastrophic for West Lafayette schools, ultimately reducing the amount available for students by over $1,000 per student. In 2010, at the urging of school officials, the citizens of West Lafayette passed a referendum authorizing a local property tax of $0.43 per $100 of assessed valuation. The amount actually imposed has been less than that, $0.37 per $100 of assessed valuation. Due to the requirements of state law, this referendum expires and to continue providing that funding to the school, the referendum must be reauthorized in order to keep the tax rate the same. If that funding goes away, so does the quality of our schools. This referendum is necessary to keep taxes at the same level they are at today and should be the top priority for the school board.

Provide for new and renovated facilities
The quality of our schools is a blessing. It provides our kids with a world class education. It is a source of civic pride. The desirability of living in our school district increases property values. However, the demand for what West Lafayette schools have to offer presents a challenge in the form of an increased student population caused by people moving into the district. We are out of space with our current facilities. To keep class sizes at acceptable levels, we need additional classroom facilities.

Exacerbating this problem, the Happy Hollow Elementary building is approaching the end of its useful life. The costs of maintenance and repair likely cannot be justified when compared to the cost of building a new facility.

Fortunately, bonds from construction in years past are coming to an end, allowing the school district to issue new bonds for the necessary construction without increasing the school district’s expenditures above current levels. Additionally, we have space at the old Burtsfield site to construct the new facility.

Plan for leadership transition

A critical part of the proper functioning of the school is having a quality leadership team in place. West Lafayette Schools have a tremendous asset in Superintendent of Schools, Rocky Killion. Some day, however, Dr. Killion will likely want to do other things with his time, and the School Corporation should develop a strategy that will ensure a smooth transition when that day comes.

Work to create local accountability model that reduces need for standardized tests
Due to state and federal laws, schools have been required to spend large sums of money on standardized testing and subject students to needless hours of test-taking and waste valuable class time. These tests usually do not yield any information about the students that the teachers and students did not already know. Recent changes to the No Child Left Behind Act have created an opportunity to reduce some of this waste. The potential now exists to replace state- and federally-driven, high-stakes standardized testing with a locally created accountability model focused on short, formative assessments. Such assessments would help guide teachers by providing timely data about a student’s needs. West Lafayette Community Schools should continue its partnership with Lafayette School Corporation, Tippecanoe School Corporation, and Community Commitment to Education to develop this model and attempt to gather the necessary support from the Indiana General Assembly to implement a more productive, less wasteful accountability model.

To residents of the West Lafayette school district reading this, I appreciate your consideration and hope you will vote for me. There are four seats open and five candidates. Obviously, my first recommendation is that you vote for me! Beyond that, I would recommend you cast your other three votes for the incumbents: Brad Marley, Brian Bittner, and Tom Schott. I have nothing negative to say about the challenger, but I do know that we have a good board that works well together. Under this board, the school has been accomplishing great things. Among other things: very high graduation rates, high national rankings, and consistently ranked one of the best school districts in Indiana. On top of that, property values have been going up in recent years — partly because of the high demand to get into West Side Schools. So, my recommendation is to keep a good thing going.

For more information about the candidates, the League of Women Voters has a guide.

I’ve said this before, so for long time readers, excuse the repetition. And it’s not like the Internet lacks for opinions on the Clinton/Trump race, but I’m a citizen, and this is important. So once again:

Trump is dangerously unqualified. His temperament is unstable, he lacks knowledge, he lacks the inclination to obtain knowledge, and he will not take direction from people who know what they’re talking about. I happen to think Clinton is very qualified and that the criticisms of her are probably overblown. But, even setting that aside, her flaws are ordinary political flaws. She’s not dangerously unstable.

And that’s where my analysis pretty much ends. Trump is dangerously unqualified and unstable, and his Presidency would potentially pose an existential threat to the country. Clinton is none of those things. I have gathered enough information that I could get into a nuanced debate about this or that issue, but what’s the point? If you have one candidate that’s a threat to the future of the country and another one that isn’t, any rational voting algorithm tells you to stop there and vote against the one who can’t credibly do the job and vote for the one who can credibly do the job.

This isn’t a game. It’s not cheering when your team scores or the other team fumbles. It’s choosing the leadership of the most powerful country in the world. Someone who, in a very real sense, has power over life and death. As citizens of that country, we have a duty to vote rationally and not based on our tribal affiliations or emotions. If the Republicans had nominated a plausibly competent candidate, this would be a tougher decision. But they didn’t, so it’s not.

I’ve been seeing some discussion lately of the proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution with respect to Hunting, Fishing, and “Harvesting Wildlife.” I wrote about it a couple of times back in 2015 (and in 2005, 2011, and 2013 it turns out)

So, once more with feeling, I suppose. Vote against this. We should only amend the Constitution when there is a clear need. It’s a foundational document, and we should not tinker with it lightly. If there is a problem, run-of-the-mill laws are usually sufficient. Amending the constitution is an extraordinary act. Furthermore, when we do amend the Constitution, the language should be direct and clear. In this case, the language isn’t clear, there is not a discernible problem being addressed, and there is no indication that ordinary legislation is somehow insufficient to address any problems there might be.

The proposed amendment states:

Section 39. (a) The right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife:
(1) is a valued part of Indiana’s heritage; and
(2) shall be forever preserved for the public good.

(b) The people have a right, which includes the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to the laws prescribed by the General Assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the General Assembly to:
(1) promote wildlife conservation and management; and
(2) preserve the future of hunting and fishing.

(c) Hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.

(d) This section shall not be construed to limit the application of any provision of law relating to trespass or property rights.

Back in 2015, I raised the following questions and have not seen answers to them:

1. What does it mean to say “The right to harvest wildlife shall be forever preserved for the public good”?

2. What are “traditional methods?” Whose traditions. At what point in time? Can we develop new traditions? Can old traditions become non-traditional in some fashion?

3. If hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing wildlife, can non-preferred methods be used where they are more effective or more desirable in some fashion? If so, what’s the point of this provision?

4. If the section is not construed to limit trespass or property rights, what laws or rights are limited?

At best, the proposed amendment does nothing. The middle option is that it opens up a can of unintended consequences. The worst is that there is something nefarious I don’t see. So, I would urge people to vote “no” on this.

Update Josh Claybourn has an analysis that goes much deeper than mine.