Showing posts with label Fishers Town Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fishers Town Council. Show all posts

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Stunned By Decision

Kole v. Faultless, the lawsuit I am participating in against the Town of Fishers has been decided. The headline says it all.

More than anything here's the part that just flat out stuns me. We had this as our legal question, from Justice Shepard's decision:
In particular, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has asked us the following question, certified under Indiana Appellate Rule 64(B):

Whether a political unit may reorganize into a city under Ind. Code art. 36-1.5 (the “Reorganization Act”) in a manner that eliminates voting rights recognized under Ind. Code § 36-4-5-2 and Ind. Code § 36-4-6-3(i), including reorganization as a city with (1) a council elected entirely at large; and (2) a mayor appointed by that council.

We have accepted this question and now hold that Article 1.5 of Title 36 does allow a political subdivision to do so.1
Are you kidding me? The question is, 'Can Fishers eliminate voting rights'? The answer is 'Yes!'?

I think the big learning curve for me here is that the consideration is strictly a legal question. Our question was framed in Indiana court, with it imposed against a particular law, the "Reorganization Act". They took an incredibly narrow view of the law. The law doesn't preclude a municipality from forming this kind of government, or any other. Shepherd points to a 'liberalization' over time in Indiana in reducing barriers and restrictions to the municipalities, and evokes a move away from Dillon's Rule, and towards Home Rule.

I'm not sure I buy that. My interest is in the people's self-government. Our petition was sandbagged by the Town Council so they could advance a plan crafted in its' own interest. I don't see that as Home Rule at all. A vote of the elected officials is nowhere near the same thing as a vote of people. Maybe I just badly misunderstand the term. Anything is possible. I thought this case was a slam-dunk.

The language of the decision suggests that a door is open for laws to be written that do specify the forms of municipal government entities can form. It offers no guidelines. So, wanna create a kingdom! Hey hey, go for it! Home Rule, baby!

What move comes next has not been determined. I do expect the Fishers Town Councilors to call a press conference, do a happy dance, and generally drag our names through the mud. Can't wait for that.

Friday, January 27, 2012

Mr. Smith Goes To Indianapolis

Yesterday, my case went to the Indiana Supreme Court for oral arguments. It was an interesting affair, to say the least.

The case is Kole et al vs. Faultless. To keep from the legal gobbledegook that would make the average reader's eyes glaze over, I'll describe it simply.

I see this as a good government case. In sum, the Fishers Town Council believes that the state's Reorganization law permits units of government to select any form of government it chooses. My position is that a reorganization must fit into existing forms. There are no municipal governments in Indiana with a selected mayor. If they want that, they need to amend the Indiana Constitution. The people get to vote on the mayor.

For instance, their plan advances a type of city that would feature a mayor selected by the new city council members. The people would not directly elect the mayor.

So, in that scenario, you can forget about the executive being a check or balance to the legislative. It is clear to me that they want a rubber stamp mayor. I do not believe this to be in the best interest of the people.

This case arose from a petition that the Town Council sat on. City Yes PAC circulated a petition, which I signed, that wished for a ballot referendum to put the question before the voters- city or town? The rationale was that the population of Fishers was so large (70,000+) that it was time to enter into that form of government. I wasn't entirely sold on that proposition. I was (and remain) wary of the other examples in Hamilton County, such as Carmel or Westfield, where the mayor is a strong arm pushing through pet projects, while their city councils are often the rubber stamps. But- and this is the important point for me- I believe that at the municipal level, the people should decide their form of representative government by their direct election. Put the question on the ballot, and let the people choose. It could go either way. This was done once before, and the people chose to remain a Town.

History could repeat itself, but apparently the Town Council wasn't too confident. So, when they received a valid petition, they did nothing with it. Thus, the lawsuits proceeded.

Link to Greg Purvis' take on the suit.
Link to Abdul Hakim Shabazz's report on the suit, complete with an interview with me.

There was nothing especially surprising in the Supreme Court proceedings, although there was one moment when I had to stifle myself a bit. One Justice asked Fishers' counsel what recourse citizens would have should Fishers get its way, become the city with an appointed mayor, and they find they don't like it. To paraphrase, he said that the people could petition for a referendum.

Are you freakin' kidding me?! This is precisely what happened at the front end of this saga, and it got sandbagged very intentionally. What right thinking person really believes the same people wouldn't do the same thing again?

There are some interesting ramifications that have occurred to me, should Fishers win. The reorganization law allows municipal officials to shape governments however they like, in their view. What's to stop them from eliminating mayors? Being hypothetical here, look at a city that has a strong inclination towards voting Republican or Democrat. Think of Carmel or Anderson. The latter is more apt for what is foreseeable.

Anderson normally votes Democrat, but from time to time, as in 2007, might elect a Republican mayor. Now they still had a predominantly Democratic council. In this scenario, great for checks and balances. But, lets say the council decides that's not politically expedient. So, they get together and put together a reorganization plan that eliminates the mayor. If they have the veto-proof numbers, goodbye mayor.

As a purely personal consideration, the Supreme Court is a very interesting corner of the Statehouse. The space is fairly intimidating, with an absurdly high ceiling, gold leaf pilasters and columns, stained glass, portraits of past Justices, the five Justices on a dais of high-backed throne-like chairs, the works. The Justices ask questions that poke holes in the arguments put forth by both sides.

I found myself trying to analyze the questioning. Did it mean that the Justice found the assertion invalid? Or, was it that he was inviting the counsel to help write the decision? If they did not question an item, was it because it was wholly worthless, or wholly without dispute? It was very hard to read into it.

Nothing to do now but wait for comment from the Court. We could wait months or even years, although we suspect they will decide the case in such time that the question could be placed on the November ballot.

Monday, October 18, 2010

Audio On Fishers Lawsuit

I was recently interviewed by Chris Spangle, Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Indiana, for the party's podcast. The lawsuit against the Town of Fishers is discussed in detail.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Fishers-Geist Annexation News

Apparently, there is going to be a special Fishers Town Council meeting, tomorrow, Thursday July 12, at 8:00pm, on the issue of Fishers' attempt to forcibly annex Geist neighborhoods in Fall Creek Township. First thoughts:

Typical short notice on the special meeting. It seems Indiana municipalities are very fond of short and limited notice for special meetings. Is it that the Councils don't want attendance?

I am a Fishers resident who has been against the annexation from the beginning. Mainly, I don't care to have my Town's government growing. It will, as more area to manage means more employees and bureaucrats to govern. Also, I don't want the Town floating bonds against the increased assessed value that the annexations would create. Lastly, I thing it is wrong morally to forcibly annex non-municipal residents who chose non-municipal living into municipalities. If they voluntarily choose it- fine. Otherwise, leave 'em alone.

Here's text of an email I received from a Geist resident who is an opponent of the annexations:
I wanted to let all of you know that Fishers will be holding a special town council meeting Thursday, July 12 at 8:00 p.m.at the Fishers Town Hall. They will be voting on whether to pull the 4 ordinances regarding the annexations in Geist. If Fishers pulls the 4 ordinances, they will then proceed to meet with individual neighborhoods to try to get them to agree to be annexed "voluntarily".

My belief is that Fishers Town Council members will try to tell people that due to the Carmel case, their goal to annex Geist is all but a done deal. To be clear, Southwest Clay lost to Carmel because of the deal that NOAX (the anti-annexation group) cut with Carmel. The State Supreme Court held that the agreement was binding because enough residents signed it that the remonstration effort could not reach its 65% threshold; therefore, Southwest Clay could not fight the forced annexation any longer. We should not make the same mistake. Fishers is trying a "divide and conquer" strategy. They are hoping to get enough people to get on board with them that The Geist residents can no longer reach the 65% threshold it needs to remonstrate. The FTC thought that we wouldn't be able to meet that 65% mark because of some sewer waivers that were in place. These waivers prohibit people from remonstrating. Even with the sewer waivers (assuming they hold up in court- which is very questionable), more than enough Geist residents are opposed to annexation that the 65% remonstration number can be met. Fishers was not counting on such strong opposition to annexation.

Fishers is hoping that if they offer enough tax abatements to Geist residents that people will give up and sign on with them. Keep in mind that there is a limit to how much tax abatements they can offer, and when that time is up, Geist will begin paying the Fishers municipal tax rate. With the recent increase in property taxes, another taxing entity is not something most of us need or want.

This is not a Fishers vs. Geist battle. It never has been. It is about not wanting a 22%+ increase in taxes to receive services we are already getting -and paying for. While it may appear to be great news that Fishers is pulling these 4 ordinances- it is only a temporary measure. They are waiting to see if they can get enough Geist residents to come over to their side. If they cannot, they will try forced annexation
again.

Please consider doing the following 3 things:
1. Attend the Fishers meeting Thursday night and make your opinions known to the media that will be there.
2. Be very aware that Fishers is pulling a divide and conquer strategy. Please don't let them succeed!!!
3. Pass this message on to other neighbors in the affected Geist area

I am hopeful that I can attend and speak on the record on this issue.The new wrinkle to me is the idea that Fishers would grant tax abatements to the newly annexed Geist areas.

I am very much opposed to any tax abatements if an annexation occurs. That would mean that the existing Fishers residents would be subsidizing services to the Geist residents for the duration of the abatements, which is wrong.

This is the most senseless twist yet. The Town Council has long made the spurious argument that the Geist residents aren't paying their fair share, thus the impetus to annex. Well, if that's the case, stick to your guns! If they get tax abatements, they won't be paying their fair share!!!

This twist really reinforces to me the idea that the annexation is really about adding assessed value so that more bonds can be floated. That means more taxes over 30 years.

It's all bad government.