31 Responses to Shameless Self-Promotion Alert!!!

1. John
   July 31st, 2008 at 5:44 pm

   SPEAKING OF MONROE…………………

   INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

   DATE: July 24, 2008

   CALLED TO ORDER: 5:38 p.m.

   ADJOURNED: 5:55 p.m.

   ATTENDANCE

   ATTENDING MEMBERS ABSENT MEMBERS
   Ginny Cain, Co-Chair William Oliver, Co-Chair
   Marilyn Pfisterer Paul Bateman

   AGENDA

   Findings and Final Report

   INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

   The Investigative Committee on Ethics of the City-County Council met on Thursday, July 24, 2008. Co-Chair Ginny Cain called the meeting to order at 5:38 p.m. with the following member present: Marilyn Pfisterer. Co-Chair William Oliver and Paul Bateman were absent. General Counsel Robert Elrod was also in attendance.

   Findings and Final Report

   Co-Chair Cain stated that a draft final report was distributed to Committee members in advance of this meeting. She stated that Co-Chair Oliver and Councillor Bateman are not in attendance, but she wants to read into the record a report that has been put together by the Council attorney Mr. Elrod and herself regarding what they feel the conclusions are for this committee. She read the report into the record. [Clerk’s Note: A copy of this report is attached as Exhibit A.]

   Co-Chair Cain said that it was her plan to vote on this report this evening and send it to the full Council. However, today it was reported in The Indianapolis Star that, due to circumstances in his personal life, Councillor Bateman is stepping down from the Committee. This would leave three members on the committee, one of which is absent. The dilemma lies in whether or not Councillor Bateman has officially stepped down and whether the committee can act as a quorum without the third member. She said if Councillor Bateman’s resignation is not yet official, she is not sure of the next course of action. Mr. Elrod said that he cannot confirm whether or not Councillor Bateman has resigned and would not recommend the committee take action based on media reports. He said that it seems clear to him that the minority members have decided to avoid this meeting, perhaps because they are not willing to vote or simply to prevent a quorum. He suggested that if the two members of the committee who are in attendance are in favor of the report, they could sign it and file it with the Council, and then the Council body can judge if it should be considered a minority report or a committee report.

   Councillor Pfisterer agreed that until there has been official notification that Councillor Bateman has stepped down, the committee cannot assume a quorum and take an official vote. However, she does agree with the recommendation that those members present sign the report and pass it on to the Council and move on. She said that lots of investigation and discussion has taken place, and the intent of this committee was to restore confidence in the Council and show the public that this body does things in an ethical way. She said that censuring Councillor Monroe Gray for past actions and moving forward will help to move closer to the goal of conveying to the public that the Council wants to do things in an ethical way that commands respect.

   Co-Chair Cain called for public testimony at 5:53 p.m. There being no one present to testify, Co-Chair Cain stated that they will move forward with Mr. Elrod’s recommendation to submit the report.

   Mr. Elrod said that he wants to go on record that the co-chairs and members of the committee agreed to this meeting date several weeks ago and proper notice of this hearing went out last week. Co-Chair Cain stated that the co-chair also attended a meeting in this same room 30 minutes prior to this meeting, even though he is absent at this hearing.

   Co-Chair Cain said that she and Councillor Pfisterer will sign off on this report and forward it to the full Council. She said that she has taken this assignment seriously. As a body that handles public money, she feels it is important that they take the time to look at the facts and handle such issues truthfully and honestly. She said that she feels the final report reflects that process.

   There being no further business, and upon motion duly made, the meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

   Respectfully Submitted,

   Ginny Cain, Co-Chair

   GC:ag

   EXHIBIT A

   REPORT OF INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE

   This committee was established by City-County Council Resolution No. 80, 2007. The committee was directed by Section 3 of that resolution to review certain public allegations against Councillor Monroe Gray to determine (1) if the allegations are true, (2) whether such conduct warrants censure by the council, and (3) to make recommendations to assure Councillors are held to the highest ethical standards.

   THE ALLEGATION

   The committee has reviewed the public allegations and public documents. The committee directed correspondence to the Marion County Prosecuting Attorney, the Marion County Ethics Board, and the Supreme Council Disciplinary Commission inquiring about any pending actions respecting the allegations. The committee has held public hearings to discuss the allegations and responsibilities of the committee.

   The committee has identified six issues raised by the allegations:

   Allegation One: Was Monroe Gray paid a salary by the Indianapolis Fire Department but not assigned any duties in violation of the Ghost Employment Statute, IC 35-44-2-4?

   Allegation Two: Did Monroe Gray violate the Conflict of Interest Statute, IC 35-44-1-3 by failing to file proper disclosures with respect to contracts by his company with United Water, a contractor with the City?

   Allegation Three: Did Monroe Gray violate the Conflict of Interest Statute, IC 35-44-1-3 by failing to file proper disclosures with respect to his wife’s interest in the bar in the Carson Center?

   Allegation Four: Did Monroe Gray improperly continue to use the Council’s General Counsel to rule on matters relating to his actions as Council President while the General Council represented him and his business?

   Allegation Five: Were items omitted or misstated on the 2006 ethics form filed by Councillor Gray with respect to his ownership interests in Mid-Region Concrete which did business with Trotter Construction?

   Allegation Six: Did Monroe Gray mis-use his position as President, and by voting on matters related to his personal interests, to delay investigation of the allegations against him?

   FINDINGS

   The committee concludes that Allegation One, Two and Three involve possible violations of criminal statutes. As such, those are matters for the Prosecuting Attorney to pursue. The Prosecuting Attorney has advised the committee that he is prohibited by law from disclosing whether there a criminal investigation pending. The Committee recommends that these allegations be formally referred to the Prosecuting Attorney by delivering to him a copy of this report.

   The committee is advised that the matters of Allegation Four have been referred to the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. Although the Committee has not received any response to their inquiry to the Commission, the committee recommends that this matter be left to the Disciplinary Commission. The amendments adopted to the Council Rules since this Committee was established, prohibit such conflicts in the future.

   The committee has reviewed the actions of the Ethics Board with respect to Allegation Five. The Corporation Counsel, as secretary of that Board, has advised the committee that no actions are currently pending with respect to that matter. The minutes of the Ethics Board do not clearly reveal what issues were considered by the Board. The Board seems only to have considered the admission by Councillor Gray that his answer to Question 7 on the disclosure form was false and found that to be a “technical violation” of the Code. There is no mention in the minutes about his failure to answer Question 8 on the form. The Board’s decision was to recommend that Councillor Gray file an amended disclosure form. The Board’s minutes reports one member’s opinion that the Board did not have the ability to take disciplinary action against an elected official and did not recommend any disciplinary actions against Councillor Gray. That position seems contrary to the provisions of Sec. 293-108. At very least the Board should have reported the violation to the Council or prosecuting attorney for appropriate sanctions. The forms are filed under penalties for perjury. The allowing an amendment to correct a false statement, without recommending any penalty or disciplinary action, in effect means that there was no penalty for making a false statement on the disclosure form. The Committee concludes that the interpretation of the Ethics Board in allowing an amendment of a false disclosure form did not effectively accomplish the intent of the ordinance. Because it involved the 2006 filing and the Ethics Board has ruled on the matter, the committee finds no basis for it to take further action. However, the committee recommends that the Ethics Code be amended to create mandatory penalties for false statements in the disclosure forms.

   The Committee finds with respect to Allegation Six that the President improperly used his prerogatives as president to delay council consideration of resolutions to censure his conduct and continued to vote with respect to a resolution directed at him personally. The committee determines that the actions of Monroe Gray while president of the Council showed a disregard of the ethical standards to which a councillor should be held, by failing to make disclosures of personal business interests as required by law, by failing to inquire of city business done by those with whom is business was contracting, by continuing to vote on matters clearly directed to his personal interests, and by allowing his personal attorney to advise the council on procedures relating to this personal interest and refusing, after being requested to do so, to seek independent counsel for the Council on such matters. The committee further finds that such conduct has adversely affected the public confidence in the council. The Committee concludes that Monroe Gray should have abstained from voting on matters respecting resolutions dealing with his personal conduct. The Committee recommends that revisions to the Council Rules be considered that would make such abstentions mandatory.

   The Committee finds that the facts as reported seem substantially true. Further investigation at this time would be costly without producing substantial information that would be helpful to the committee.

   CENSURE

   Because Allegations One, Two, Three and Four are subject to actions by other officials, the Committee recommends that the consideration of censure on these allegations be postponed until those actions are known.

   Because the Ethics Board did not recommend any disciplinary action with respect to Allegation Five after finding a violation, the Committee recommends that Councillor Gray be censured for filing a false ethics disclosure. Further, the committee recommends that amendments be incorporated in the new ethics code to create mandatory penalties for making false statements on the disclosure forms.

   Because the prior Council failed to act with respect to Allegation Six, prior to the expiration of the term of that Council, the Committee is confronted with the issue of whether or not it is appropriate for the current Council to deal with misconduct occurring during a prior Council’s term. As stated in the previous finding in this report, the Committee has determined that Councillor Gray acted improperly in voting on matters of his personal interest, allowing his personal attorney to act as Parliamentarian, refusing to provide independent counsel, when decisions involving his personal interests were being considered, and thereby delayed consideration of his conduct while serving as President of the Council. To maintain the integrity of the Council, those actions must be, and are hereby, condemned. Although Censure would be a proper sanction for such actions, the Committee determines that it would be inappropriate for the current councillors to now formally censure a councillor for actions taken during meetings of a prior council.

2. StatlernWaldorf
   July 31st, 2008 at 5:56 pm

   Hey Jen….It isn’t about how much money Mitch has to spend on ads, it’s about the fact that Mitch has actually done GOOD for this state…NOTICEABLE good. If your party isn’t willing to help JLT with money for better ads, tough luck on you. She has NOTHING to bring to the table. Kind of like Obama….”Change”. Change to what? (insert crickets chirping here)
   -
   Mayor Ballard has been in the position for a whopping 8 months. THE major thing he ran on was moving the PD back under the mayor….DONE. He inherited a mess from a DemocRAT mayor and a DemocRAT CCC. It will take years to straighten that mess out and we citizens understand that. You DemocRATS are the ones who are expecting magic. It isn’t that way in the real world and real people KNOW that.
   -
   Bashing privitization appeals only to those union hacks that are steadily losing their jobs because they are pricing THEMSELVES out of a job. Government cannot perform better than the private sector, that has been proven by every state agency there is. The toll road was not sold, it was leased and if the entity it was leased to doesn’t hold up its end of the deal we get the road back sooner than contracted.
   -
   Jen, what gets most of us about you libs is the fact that if it were a Democrat Governor who did the same things you would applaud him/her. Regular people like me will look at the action, not who performed it.
   -
   (/rant)

3. Greg
   July 31st, 2008 at 7:59 pm

   Ditto SW. Funny what one sees when one chooses to look at facts, and not party talking points.

4. Angry Caucasian Boy 2008
   July 31st, 2008 at 8:19 pm

   It is funny how Jen’s left and Abdul’s right…don’t appeal to a guy like me ..40..White…married…kids…college educated…conservative…

   The Republican party has left me…I didn’t leave it…Oh, and as to the Dems/Socialists…don’t worry folks. They will be history by the 2010 mid-terms….It will take 20 years for the Dem party to recover from Jimmy Carter 2.0…The “Obama-Nation”….laughable..

5. Anonymous
   July 31st, 2008 at 9:18 pm

   Everybody is talking about production values and money spent for Daniels and JLT’s ads. Well I know that Daniels spent $500,000 just on PRODUCTION to win last time. That is money that went to the JUST to the production co. that shot his ads, not the consultant/strategist. Last fall, JLT spent a whoping $13,000 to produce ALL of the ads she ran to win the Primary. Now lets see, if JLT spent the kind of money and shot the number of days (and that takes money of course) Daniels has, I would expect the commercials to look as good as his do. For the money she is spending her ads are not looking that bad.

6. StatlernWaldorf
   July 31st, 2008 at 9:50 pm

   Anon….HUGE difference in what is spent to win a primary that ALL of your opponents basically dropped out of, and what is spent to win the ACTUAL election that COUNTS.
   -
   Once again, WHO CARES what is spent anyway??? It is the SUBSTANCE and ACTIONS that count, and Mitch has support even if he doesn’t run a single ad!

7. Sean Shepard
   August 1st, 2008 at 2:44 am

   This was a great back-and-forth discussion. Tell Jen to relax, she looks too stiff!

   I agree completely with the previous comment that if a D Gov had done the same things they would be bragging about the great success, progress or whatever.

   Now, you just need a Libertarian on capital watch to talk about what REALLY needs to be done. ;-)

8. varangianguard
   August 1st, 2008 at 6:08 am

   Heh, Sean. If only the media could count to three…and, I still haven’t confirmed that Andy Horning even gets included in the televised gubernatorial “debates” yet.

   And, yeah, Channel 6. A three-way panel might be much more entertaining, and less likely to become stale so quickly. (Hint: that would mean viewership, bottom line, ratings)

9. David Myers
   August 1st, 2008 at 6:16 am

   John, stay tuned. From my souces this Monroe Gray thing is not dead. More to come later this year. And that is all I have to say believe it or not.

10. Russ
    August 1st, 2008 at 8:45 am

    In agreement that Jen Wagner is a stiff… ask Abdul if she has a button in her back that shuts her off like Commander Data. He’s the only thing that makes this watchable.

11. Melyssa
    August 1st, 2008 at 10:19 am

    WHen Channel 6 puts a Libertarian on the Capital Watch show, I’ll watch it. I’ll even pay attention to their advertising and try to spend my money with those companies.
    .
    Until then, it’s not balanced reporting and therefore not worth my time.
    .
    Sean Shepard is the perfect to be the third panelist on the show. He knows the issues better than most and he’s exceptionally articulate and natural on camera.
    .

12. Taxpayer 834512
    August 1st, 2008 at 10:22 am

    Roger that. Shepard, Horning, McGuire….

13. Shorebreak
    August 1st, 2008 at 11:13 am

    Melyssa/Taxpayer,
    .
    I share your sentiments. Sean and Andy are the two most prominant voices I’ve seen in Indiana politics when it comes to speaking the truth to issues. Granted, neither bear the burden of entrenched political/business allegiances and affiliations, or a need to “keep the door open” that the popular politicians and pundits are carrying.
    .
    But that’s the beauty of it.
    .
    They (Sean, Andy etc) can speak honestly and openly about issues - whether they be an achilles heel to one or both parties - without the necessary bias that’s required of folks who risk shooting themselves or their affiliates in the foot when balanced perspective becomes detrimental to their position.
    .
    And on a practical level, a two-sided debate is boring. At the very least, the program should introduce a guest for each of their programs - maybe with the open and close by Jen/Abdul, but with the body of the program to include guest perspective that opens the door to discussions that move beyond ideological or two-sided barriers.

14. Anonymous
    August 1st, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    StatlernWaldorf-post 6.
    I couldn’t agree with you more. All I was reacting to were the posts about production values, how JLT looks, the clothes she wears etc. All that has to do with spending money to do production right. I agree that it is the message that is the most important thing, after all JLT won the primary and was way out-spent. And I can gaurantee Daniels will out-spend her in the general election. And you are right about his support.

15. John
    August 1st, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    Why would anyone watch that COW on television?

16. Melyssa
    August 1st, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    One of our Libertarian leaders who knows the Constitution and the crimes against the people perpetuated at every level of representative government would eat that woman alive…regardless of how bad she looks on TV. The Libertarians would make her look worse.

17. Sean Shepard
    August 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pm

    Very appreciative of the kind words regarding Mr. Horning, Mr. Maguire and myself. It’s unfortunate that a lot of the stuff guys like Andy Horning have been trying to tell us for years would happen is now happening.

    That $482 billion deficit that was just reported should scare people as it is equal to a one year, 10% increase in the cash debt outstanding - 10% of that held by Communist China. OR, if they just print the money to cover it, everyone else’s existing dollars went down in value.

    As for Capital Watch, maybe it could be like The Mclaughlin Group format. The Republican could speak, and then the Democrat and then a Libertarian could gruffly says, “WRONG!” and gives the right answer or pick the right one from the other two. LOL

    Seriously, they both did well. Abdul seemed very comfortable and at home in front of the camera. I’m looking forward to more installments.

    Oh, and it’s my understanding the new mortgage relief bill passed by Congress and signed by the President this week basically requires all credit card transactions to be uploaded to the IRS. I haven’t checked the final version myself, but … say hello to “Big Brother”.

18. Taxpayer 834512
    August 1st, 2008 at 1:37 pm

    Gimme a break. I think we can find plenty of barnyard and zoological liknesses dispersed amongst all political parties (afraid to look in the mirror myself). Just issues, please.

19. Shorebreak
    August 1st, 2008 at 1:52 pm

    Sean - to make matters worse, that $482 Billion deficit figure is clearly a distortion. It doesn’t include $80 Billion that was allotted to Iraq/Afghanistan, it doesn’t include $227 Billion taken from the Social Security Trust Fund, and it doesn’t include $36 Billion from the just passed housing bill.
    .
    The actual 2009 budget deficit is a minimum of $825 Billion. The figures released by the White House don’t come close to the actual deficit value.

20. Really
    August 1st, 2008 at 4:10 pm

    Hey Harold Hill,

    I will stick with Indiana Week in Review.

21. Melyssa
    August 1st, 2008 at 5:04 pm

    Of course you all know by now that Obama’s great idea for Americans now is to force the piggy oil companies to fork over $1000 to every American household to offset our energy needs.
    .
    How’s that sitting with you Abdul? We know you want Commrade Obama to win.

22. Sean Shepard
    August 1st, 2008 at 8:10 pm

    Shorebreak - as usual you are absolutely right. Of course, the new bill raises the debt ceiling by something like $800 billion (I really need to read it - which is more than most congressmen voting for it did).

    As with most people, I’ve been too busy with work and family lately to dig deep into the facts on everything that is going on. But, it’s fair to say our fine government is wayyyy off the farm.

    Oh, and very nice of Pelosi to ajourn without some good energy legislation. Of course, they can’t get anything done that’s helpful while a Republican is in office. Politics before the people. Can we please all stop voting for these nimrods?

23. Sean Shepard
    August 1st, 2008 at 8:11 pm

    by “office” I meant the oval one. sorry.

24. Taxpayer 834512
    August 1st, 2008 at 11:32 pm

    Senator Obama’s 1K oil company stimulus aside, I’ve been thinking about oil. It would be one thing if we could buy it in different colors, models, and flavors, with standards and options varying by price (ok - we got octane). Or, if we had an array of non-petroleum options (either drive up corn prices or wait until hell freezes over for commercial biodiesel). Or, if the U.S. oil companies would temper typical voracious capitalism somewhat for the ailing American consumer, versus this perception of cackling over record profits. All it makes me wonder if treating oil like a utility or nationalizing wouldn’t have made sense- IF, IF, we had a goverment that actully cared more about citizens than reelections and demonizing the other party, AND wouldn’t just make the situation worse. I very much want to send less money to the Middle East, to burn something besides a fixed quantity of pressurized fossils that took a million years to create, and not reap the worst out of our free-enterprise system that’s gone off the leash. For now I guess it’s tough it out with driving less, the bicycle fleet, and probably learn the bus routes. I guess it’s a dream to take the I69 construction money and put it into buses for Marion and the donut counties?

25. Sean Shepard
    August 2nd, 2008 at 4:47 am

    I have to say, I do wish we had a subway system or something. Indy might not really be big enough to support that, but I love going to New York or D.C., parking the car somewhere and not needing it again because anything and everything is within 3-4 blocks of a subway station.

    The record oil company profits don’t bother me so much as long as their profit margin percentage doesn’t increase substantially, and it really can’t because of competition. Keep in mind, the government (state and federal combined) takes in more tax money per gallon than the oil companies make in profit.

    The high price of gas is going to lead people to more economical options though, which should reduce demand. With increased domestic exploration (please Nancy P. ??) I would hope that would help. World demand is going to keep increasing though.

    The deficit spending by our government is impacting the value of the dollar and making oil imports much, much more expensive. Priced in Euros or other more stable currencies the price of petrol has not gone up by nearly the same percentage as it has here, but it has still gone up some.

    AND - Social Security and Medicare have not yet begun to bankrupt us the way they are going to. We are in deep doo-doo my friends.

26. Taxpayer 834512
    August 2nd, 2008 at 8:39 am

    Thanks for the wakeup call, Sean. Forgot about the devalued purchasing power aspect aspect (as I’m sure other factors in this pondering). Diverting highway construction dollars to mass trans dollars is still spending dollars we don’t have.

27. GEEVES
    August 2nd, 2008 at 9:39 am

    Wagner is awful. Sorry, but I won’t be watching.

28. Silent Bob
    August 2nd, 2008 at 7:29 pm

    Evan will be made to look like Dan Quayle. In fact Dan is a personality magnet compared to Bayh. Obama has got to do better.

29. Taxpayer 834512
    August 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 pm

    Obama-Gray? (as in Monroe- “Not just Change, but a Concrete Change”), Obama-Robbins?(as in Tony- “Change So Postive, You’re Ready to Retch”, Obama-Crow?(as in Sheryl- “A Change From Listening to Oblique Promises of Change Will Do Me Good”

30. Taxpayer 834512
    August 3rd, 2008 at 10:20 am

    In the spirit of my harping on bipartisan cooperation:
    McCain-Eastwood (as in Clint - The “How Lucky Do You Feel(While I’m Beating You With My Cane), Punk?” ticket)
    McCain-Jindal (as in Bobby - The “Young Cajun Shrimp and Crusty Tough Lobster” combo)
    McCain-Thurmond (as in Strom - The “You Don’t Like My Age and Health?, Would You Rather Have My VP?” ticket.

31. Jesse
    August 3rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm

    Abdul, you are freakin’ hilarious!

Leave a Reply