Home

Join

Main Menu



blog advertising is good for you
Powered by Disqus

Links

«
»

How I Spent My Summer Vacation, Part 3

The blog, Advance Indiana, has raised some legitimate questions about the residency of City-County Council Member Patrice Abdullah. Abdullah represents the 15th District, however his home address on the Council’s website, 1144 Warman, is not in his district. I did a check of the council map and there are two 1144 Warmans, one north and one south. The north address is in Marilyn Pfisterer’s district, while the south address is in Dane Mahern’s district.

Call me crazy here, but I was under the impression a Council member was supposed to live in their district or they had to give up the seat? According to the Council’s latest public list of addresses, Abdullah has lived on Warman since June of 2007. So what does this mean, you might ask? District 15 is heavily Democratic and there is no Republican on the ballot, so Democrats would keep that seat. That’s right. But depending on when Patrice moved to 1144 Warman, his votes on the council subsequent to that time could be considered illegal and therefore invalid as he did not lawfully reside in his district.

One vote that comes to mind immediately is the public safety tax vote that was held on July 23. If 1144 Warman was Abdullah’s home address at the time of the vote, and there is no reason to think it wasn’t, an argument could be made the tax increase was not properly passed because the vote (15-13-1) did not have a majority because Patrice should not have voted. And this goes for any measure that Patrice has voted on.

It’s nice to be back from vacation and bring these items to you. More is on the way.

Posted: 08|12|07 at 11:34 am by Abdul Hakim-Shabazz
Follow this entry via RSS 2.0.

  • Anonymous

    Abdul,
    welcome back. hope everything with your son is ok.
    i will have some pictures soon of Abdulla’s vacant houses. the one at 937 n.sheffield has the gas meter turned off. i hope to get some close up shots soon.

    Oh! counselor Abdullah. don’t try to harass me if i take pictures of houses. you will not win!

    SW

  • http://www.vote4katz.com Katz

    I can’t say I’m not surprised, but what surprises me most is that the Star and the (R) minority hasn’t jumped on this like white on rice.

    Even Tully slammed the Peterson regime and the CCC (Monroe Gray) in his last column. The dominoes are falling.

  • Rob

    Not saying that living outside their representative district is right…

    But where in the MuniCode does it say they have to?

    I was looking through it and couldn’t find it…

  • Jerry

    I’m sure it’s somewhere in the code.

    They could try what Fishers did, and redistrict the territory so the representative lives in that district.

    Somehow, it didn’t affect anything and all previous votes by the Fishers Town Councilman were not put into question.

  • http://www.kolehardfacts.blogspot.com Mike Kole

    This isn’t new. Your frequent fill-in Brad Klopfenstein ran against Abduallah in 2003. Brad filed a complaint with the Elections Division regarding Abduallah’s residency at that time. The complaint was dismissed without a hearing.

  • Anonymous

    Abdul,

    I went to 1144 south warman today. no house on the property. Went to 1144 n. warman today. have pictures of 1144 north warman and 937 n. sheffield which looks to be vacant. i was gonna peek in the windows but wilson would scold me if i did.

blog comments powered by Disqus
«
»

How I Spent My Summer Vacation, Part 2

The coffee is brewing and the bacon is on the stove, so now I can get back to blogging. I misplaced my jail overcrowding notes, but I should be able to find them by the end of the day and get that story to you.

Meanwhile, Judge Rueben Hill came under fire this week for dismissing a DUI charge against a defendant because the officer was never officially sworn in as IMPD. By the way, the story made this morning’s New York Times. Everyone was freaking out over this, but I don’t understand why anyone was surprised.

During the swearing in ceremony earlier this year, I asked IMPD top brass this exact same question. If my memory serves me correctly, the only officers who showed up for the voluntary swearing in were lieutenants and above and homicide detectives. The rest stayed home since they weren’t getting paid. I asked the Sheriff and the Chief if the other officers were legit since they didn’t show. I was told that wasn’t an issue, since the swearing in was more ceremonial. Really?

I figured it was a matter of time before someone got smart and challenged the arrest using this strategy. And now we’ll have to live with the consequences, which I believe right now, will not look good for Marion County if this gets to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Posted: 08|12|07 at 11:28 am by Abdul Hakim-Shabazz
Follow this entry via RSS 2.0.

  • Anonymous

    They were originally sworn in as “police officers for the City of Indianapolis” and they still are “police officers for the City of Indianapolis.”

    Having said that, is there any law that requires a swearing in, or is it just a ceremonial event?

  • Pete

    If I’m not mistaken, the officers from the old Marion County police force were NOT sworn in as police officers for the city of Indianapolis, but for Marion County. The IMPD was created as a wholly new entity, and the city obviously didn’t double check whether the purported “grandfather clause” they wrote into the ordinance passed legal muster with the State’s regulations about what constituted a legally sworn in officer.

  • Eastside Bob

    1) The Marion County Sheriff’s Department was a single entity unto it’s own with it’s own defined authority under law.

    2) The Indianapolis Police Department was a single entity unto it’s own with it’s own defined authority under law.

    The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department is a NEW ENTITY which combined two previous and legally seperate law enforcement units into one. Therefor oath taken by a Sheriff’s Deputy was the not the same as an oath taken by a Police Officer. They both had seperate and distinct legal authority

    I’m afraid this may go to the State Supreme Court and it would be interesting to hear the Court state that both Sheriffs and City Policemen are one in the same. LOL

    Yep, I think I’s swear those officers in before it got that far but then that would screw up all those arrests made prior.
    What a frigging mess!

  • Anonymous

    Question for those who brought up the issue of separate entity, different oaths:

    Prior to the merger we had a Consolidated City. After the merger we still have a Consolidated City. Police officers are appointed by the political subdivision of the state, which, for these officers of two departments were both for the same political subdivision, the Consolidated City. Both departments provided law enforcement for the Consolidated City and both enforced the ordinances of the Consolidated City of Indianapolis-Marion County, Indiana both prior to and after the departments merged. The political subdivision just had two different departments duplicating the service, but both are a part of the Consolidated City (See Consolidated Cities and Counties Act 1968).

    Now, if the officers of both agencies swore to perform their law enforcement function and faithfully enforce the laws of Indiana and ordinances of the Consolidated City of Indianapolis-Marion County, Indiana then what is the big deal??? Call it two different departments if you want, but it seems to me that the officers took an oath to perform the same duty to the same governmental entity, the Consolidated City of Indianapolis-Marion County, Indiana.

    Now, I have searched and NOT found any law about police officers being required to take an oath. If that is the case, then the oath is merely a ceremonial act and has no bearing on the officer’s status as a police officer.

    I think the prior posts make too big a deal of 2 different agencies….the bottom line is when the officers were sworn in they were sworn to uphold the laws of Indiana and ordinances of the Consolidated City of Indianapolis-Marion County, Indiana. It seems the oatch issue is moot because they already took an oath to perform their respective duty for the SAME governmental entity they now work for!

  • IPDCopper

    Thanks for your unbiased opinion Kobi (Anon 07:42PM).

  • Commonsense

    While listening to Abdul this morning, it seems the central issue is whether the officers are part of a NEW police force or were somehow “transferred” from IPD to the IMPD.

    I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I feel that I am qualified to point out G.O. 110, 2005, which seems very interesting.

    a. Section 279-103 states (a) After December 31, 2006:

    (1) Members of the Indianapolis Police Department CEASE EMPLOYMENT with the consolidated city; and

    (2) County police officers CEASE EMPLOYMENT as county police officers; and become members of the metropolitan law enforcement agency under this chapter.

    Use of commonsense may be the flaw in my logic since the law is seldom based on commonsense; but if you CEASE EMPLOYMENT with one agency; you must be beginning new employment with the metropolitan law enforcement agency.

    If you are a new officer in the metropolitan law enforcement agency, then Indiana Code speaks to the oath.

    I.C. 5-4-11 (c), every officer and every deputy, before entering on the officer’s or deputy’s duties, shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana, and that officer or deputy will faithfully discharge the duties of such office.

    It seems to me once again using commonsense; if you CEASE EMPLOYMENT with one agency, then you must begin employment with a new agency. There is no transfer or absorption into the new metropolitan law enforcement agency.

    If you are a new employee, then you must take an oath before you begin your duties.

blog comments powered by Disqus
«
»

How I Spent My Summer Vacation

Let me start by saying it’s nice to be back. I had a great time with my son and revisiting old haunts in that other Capitol City across the border. However, all good things must come to an end. Although I was gone for 10 days, that doesn’t mean I wasn’t paying attention to what was going on here. We’ll just start at the beginning and work our way through.

The Mayor’s Budget Address

I had to watch this three times. I watched the first two times because I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. I watched the third time for substance and couldn’t believe what I was hearing. The only thing more disturbing than the fact Hizzoner did not want to be there (which was evident by his body language and other non-verbal cues) and city employees (probably under threat of the disciplinary action) stacked the audience and ordinary citizens were forced to stay outside, some in the heat, was the actual Mayor’s speech.

No offense to the Mayor, but come on. Hizzoner didn’t lie, but he did leave out some very inconvenient truths. He said his government cut $83 million from the budget over the last three years, then why has city spending continuously increased and more than $83 million?

The Mayor also said child welfare and juvenile incarceration costs are also responsible for the increase. Once again, no offense, but in the city’s own budget presentation using sample data, child welfare costs were only about 6.5 percent of the increase in a local tax bill. And local governments do have control over child welfare and juvenile incarceration costs. The Mayor and his staff know the adjudication of minors and children are made by local judges. The state picks up the initial tab and then bills back to the county. Sitting down and working with the judiciary makes more sense to me than blaming the state again and again and again.

And let’s talk about consolidation. I am a big fan of it and think it should have been done a long time ago. But Mr. Mayor, you know if you got consolidation today you would not see any savings for a while, unless you engaged in massive layoffs. Let’s be straight here.

Fundamentally the problem with county government is spending. Simply put, in Indiana local governments determine what they are going to spend and that incomes the levy. The levy amount then is divided up amongst all the taxpayers and every one pays there portion, residential, commercial and industrial. When commercial and industrial pay a lot less, residential pays more, this is not rocket science, it’s actually Sim City.

This piece is getting wordy. I apologize. Give me a few minutes to go down to the corner store and grab a few things. I’ll be back to write about jail overcrowding, the Hill Court decision and Patrice Abdullah and his residency issues.

Posted: 08|12|07 at 10:19 am by Abdul Hakim-Shabazz
Follow this entry via RSS 2.0.

  • varangianguard

    I was taken to task by a self puported “employee taxpayer” who took up one of those seats on Aug. 6th. Acording to him, he too is a taxpayer and deserved to be there as much as anybody else. Also, that he likes what the Mayor is doing for Indy and was glad to provide applause.

    I tried to remind him that his status as a “public servant” should have preeempted his taxpayer status and he should have given up his seat to a citizen who had trekked to the meeting on their own dime.

    I never heard back.

  • Melyssa

    I asked city employees in uniformed white shirts sitting in the front if they would give up their seats for taxpayers, some of whom arrived as early as 5:15, to get a seat and were kept out.

    An eye witness telephoned me later and said that someone asked Chief Greeson who I was. Chief Greeson while in uniform at this official city meeting called me a “bull dyke”.

    Later that week I telephoned Chief Greeson. He professed what an honest man he is and stated he did not call me that name. Yet the eye witness specifically went to Greeson after the meeting to ask his name to be sure. I don’t believe Chief Greeson, I believe the eye witness who phoned me.

    All of the men sitting around Greeson laughed after he called me that name.

    I honestly thought our public servants were above calling the taxpayer citizens names. This should tell everyone just how deeply arrogant and shameful these men are.

    No man without honor can hurt me, however, these people should not have the public trust.

  • varangianguard

    For employees in the private sector (managers included), those kind or remarks would earn them a few trips to the Human Resources offices. Then, if they were lucky, some lessons in tolerance and tact. Otherwise, early retirement might be the next option.

    Why the public sector seems immune is beyond me.

  • Anonymous

    Melyssa, all I can say is “consider the source.” Greeson first off looks like a hippie with that long hair in violation of Fire Department standards; second, allows Monroe Gray and Vern Brown to perform ghost employment and be paid an executive salary for the fire dept. without giving them meaningful responsibilities commensurate with executive standing; and third, he is a yes-man for Bart. If he gave up his seat at the speech for a taxpayer, I guarantee you that he would be demoted and out in a fire company the next day.

  • Melyssa

    So being a “yes-man” for Bart Peterson is more important than his honor?

    Honestly, I don’t understand people sometimes. I don’t understand how one can pursue a career in public SERVICE and treat the public in such a disrespectful manner. I don’t understand why people sell out their honor. Perhaps that makes me naive.

  • Anonymous

    You’re not naive. Your just a victim of The Democrat Machine….and there is NO honor in The Machine!

    The Machine’s elected officials: Carl Drummer, Tony Duncan, Rozelle Boyd, Lonnell Conley don’t pay taxes but what happens? The Machine keeps these scofflaws on the public dole, so The Machine can Tax and Spend!

    Machine politics is corrupt.

  • Anonymous

    Is there now, or has there ever been a Democrat with honor?

blog comments powered by Disqus