What Did I Miss?

I got back this afternoon from my annual tri-state trip to the land where all the radio and TV stations start with the letter K. I didn’t get many text messages or phone calls while I was away, so I can assume there were no earth shattering events. However, I did do a quick jaunt around the blogosphere and here’s what I found.

Democrat Brett Voorhies officially announced his run against Republican Phil Hinkle for State Rep in District 92 on Indianapolis’ west side. This should be an interesting race. Although Marion County is trending more Democratic, in 2008 Hinkle beat Stephanie Dekemper by 3,000 votes when the County went heavily for Barack Obama. Hinkle also won in 2006 by a similar margin.

Also former DNR Commissioner Kyle Hupfer has filed to run against Democrat Scott Reske in HD 37 in Pendleton.

There was an interesting exchange between local attorney Paul Ogden and Kevin Murray, the attorney for Marion County Sheriff Frank Anderson at last week’s budget hearing. Check out the video. It starts about 12 minutes into part 2 of the Public Safety Committee hearing. What was most interesting is that Ogden, with no proof, accused Anderson of taking kickbacks from a contractor. He tried to take it back, but the cat was out of the bag. I’m not a big Frank Anderson fan, but you never publicly accuse an elected official of committing a crime with no evidence to back it up.

Speaking of budget hearings, I plan to get caught up watching them and give you some details over the course of the week.

And by the way, while in Illinois, one candidate for Governor, State Senator Kirk Dillard, told a radio interviewer that he wanted to model my home state after Indiana based on the job current Governor Mitch Daniels has done.

Nice to be back. Missed you guys, but I missed the future Mrs. Shabazz more.

Posted: 08|23|09 at 3:32 pm by Abdul Hakim-Shabazz
Follow this entry via RSS 2.0. Comment | Trackback

Rico

...uh...yeah....what he said!
Fact Checker

Rico, I find your constant reference to President Barack Obama as Barry to be offensive, disrespectful and unpatriotic. Differ with his policies as you see them as that is your right as an American and is guaranteed in our free speech system. I expect that any day now you will drop the Barry and just start calling him "boy".
IndyErnie

His name is Barry. His Mother and Stepfather changed his name to Barry JR when he was adopted. He went by Barry in collage. What's so unpatriotic about using his first name? Would you feel better if he were referred to as President Barry? How about just B? Was it unpatriotic of the left when they referred to President George W Bush as W or as Bush #2? Get over it!! Barrys fair game.
IndyErnie

Better yet... and its factual, how about... Barry JR?
Rico

I'll forgive the sentence fragments in your last post, Think Again.
It seems you are a bit inconsistent with regard to the value you place on words. Your hero Barry used many, many words to explain his vision for America during his campaign for the highest office in the land. Did his words matter? To those of us who were really paying attention, his words were quite alarming. But his rhetoric was filled with outright lies, as well. Now that he's been elected, the lying has increased in frequency. And he continues to spew falsehoods every day. Now, had he been honest of his intentions, he would have never been elected, even against a pathetic candidate like John McCain.
So, words are indeed very powerful. I fully recognize their value. But to depthless souls like yourself, they are simply a means to an end. They hold no value because they are not backed by conviction.
Taxpayer 834512

Good grief. Abdul! I must be in the place down yonder (way down yonder) and I must listen to dictionary interpretation for eternity. Help! Next topic, pulleeeeez.
Think Again

For what it's worth, Rico, I checked the brothers Merriam and their pal Mr. Webster, and here's their preferred definition:

"...Main Entry: kick·back
Pronunciation: \ˈkik-ˌbak\
Function: noun
Date: 1920
1 : a sharp violent reaction
2 : a return of a part of a sum received often because of confidential agreement or coercion <every city contract had been let with a ten percent kickback to city officials."

So the preferred definitions of the two most-highly-researched dictionaries, include words like coercion, secretively, improper, unethical. Checkmate.

I don't know where you were taught about the power of words, but you failed. Miserably. Your view, and it would seem Paul's, of the word kickback is in the distinct minority.

And yeah, it is important because words are important. Now, if Paul has a decent case about inappropriate payments ot the sheriff, because he's laid this public framework in this manner, it will be a little more difficult for the message to get heard.

THAT'S why words are important.

But if he has a solid line on the facts, his point will ultimately get across.
Think Again

Rico: I gave you the most-common definition of the word further above. It's from dictionary.com, but here it is again, along with all other definitions, in descending order of applicabililty:

"–noun 1. a percentage of income given to a person in a position of power or influence as payment for having made the income possible: usually considered improper or unethical.
2. a rebate, usually given secretively by a seller to a buyer or to one who influenced the buyer.
3. the practice of an employer or a person in a supervisory position of taking back a portion of the wages due workers.
4. a response, usually vigorous.
5. a sudden, uncontrolled movement of a machine, tool, or other device, as on starting or in striking an obstruction: A kickback from a chain saw can be dangerous."

I looked for something that described the frequency of the improper act, but no dice. Ugly and inappropriate actions are pretty much off-base in common mannered society, regardless of the number of times you commit the act.

And don't play that Bushie game of claiming the high ground, thus, by inferrence, leaving the "low ground" to those with whom you disagree. I, too, "demand accountability of our elected officials." If you only knew.

I gotta admit, calling the sheriff an incompetent crook is kinda funny. But if you are going to call him illiterate, it would be high theatre.
Rico

......are proud of what you did.
Rico

A 'kickback' is defined by Merriam Webster as:"...the return of part of something received often as part of a confidential agreement or coercion." Perhaps our own linguistic scholar Think Again can tell us how he/she defines 'often'. Perhaps the connotation of 'kickback' has become more negative over time due to its use in modern pop culture--much like the term 'progressive' has been bastardized.
By the way, Paul, some of us out here who demand accountability of our elected officials
I would have preferred if someone had called Frank 'an illiterate, incompetent crook'.
Think Again

Well, Shore, I'd just observe that Webster's has a different definition of kickback than you do. For cryin out loud folks--the word has a 95% negative connotation. Ask around. Or do like I did, and check Webster's. If you truly think the word "kickback" doens't imply improper activity, you need to put your ear to different ground.

That doesn't make Paul's over-riding concern inconsequential. It just needs framed differently.

And I agree that the sheriff's attorney could have been much more polite. And it was a public hearing, so questions should be allowable. Even outrageous questions.

But look at the tape...Paul definitely made the kickback argument.
IndyErnie

Wilson Allen is a he. He's the official Dumpster Diver for the democrat party and Andre Carson's boy.
Name

Well, he doesn't have his facts straight.
wilson46201

WHICH facts are allegedly incorrect?
Name

you said - "the first day to file for any office in the 2011 municipal elections is in late January 2011."

untrue.
Name

Wilson? Then what did Brian Williams file for 2 weeks agao? You are trying off base here. Since then, I have been told he did not file, but has begun telling people he WILL file.

And Paul O: That is really sad what you did man. Accusing a law enforcement official of taking a kickback?! Are you ASKING for trouble, or are you just loose lipped. Either way, you're as off base as Wilson, whoever she is.
Fact Checker

Wilson is right. It is legally impossible to file for the office of mayor until January of 2011. What Brian Williams did was file a committee to raise money. I am not sure if Kip Tew filed a committee or not. In any event, Wilson is 100% correct and you are the one way off base, NAME!!
Matt Stone

No, he's asking questions that the City-County council should be asking. Citizens should be able to speak freely at public hearings without intimidation from those elected or appointed officials.
Shorebreak

A kickback isn't a bribe. It's an agreement where money will be handed back to the payor by the payee. It can be formal, informal, legal, or illegal.

In this case, the concern would be in how the books are presented. For example, let's assume that a department has a defined budget from the city/state etc. The department spends it's budget and per agreement, one of the departments private service providers is refunding a certain percentage or amount of monies that are paid to it by the department. An informl term that describes these activities is "kickback". Just because some people are sensitive to the popular criminal connotation of the word does not mean that the word was used incorrectly when refering to non-criminal activities.

Here are my questions on the issue: How is that money being utilized by the department? Does it fall under budget oversight at the city council level? How is the initial expense balanced against the "refund"?

I believe that Pauls question has merit. The word "kickback" is certainly inflammatory, but it's not incorrect. We have only two legitimate recourses as citizens when it comes to policing our government. We can do nothing - which includes going with the flow or remaining silent or ineffective in the face of potential concerns, or, we challenge our leadership with hard, uncomfortable, embarassing, and pointed questions that place them in the spotlight.

As citizens we can afford to be wrong from time to time in our prodding and our questioning. What we cannot afford is to not prod or question out of fear of being wrong. Once that happens, the government is in control rather than the people.

Keep up the good work, Paul. The fact that you're making people uncomfortable is evidence to me that you're doing the right thing.
Fact Checker

I watched the committee meeting in which Paul accused Sheriff Anderson of taking a kickback. Maybe it is semantic but to me a kickback is the same as a bribe and is illegal. I cant believe that someone who introduced himself as a lawyer would use that term. The onus is now on Ogden to produce evidence of this 'kickback' or apologize and shut up. I prefer the latter.
IndyErnie

Paul didn't accuse the Sheriff of any wrong doing.
This wasn't a court of law it was a public hearing. If an apology is warranted it should be from the Sheriff's attorney who repeatedly tried to stop a citizen from questioning an elected official in a public forum and from the Sheriff for not stopping his attorney from interfering during the questioning.

The bigger question is...why do Sheriff Deputies need a car and a motorcycle? The answer is they don't. This Sheriff is over spending. Commissary funds or not the dollars could have been spent smarter his budget would be lower and the taxpayer would have more money to spend on personal and family necessities.
Jerry

Word, IndyErnie, word.
Name

yep, way outta line. maybe you find a different career soon? :lol:
Think Again

Paul, calm down. You'll see above, that I never said you accused the sheriff of committing a crime. I said you veered off the path--and you did. And, if you'll read again, I said you might be right.

I'e probably been involved with as many private-sector contracts and leases as you have, and not a damned one of them had rebate/kickback provisions. And 99% of my colleagues weren't involved with them, either. So based on my experience, I'd call it highly unusual.

I was always aware that a few of my competitors used shady techniques to "win" business--completely separate from the documents, auditors, etc. And, I was aware that all the companies involved had strict policies against such nonsense. So, they risked dismissal...yet one more sign that it was an unusual and prohibited act.

Why don't you provide evidence of the contractual arrangement that's got you so worked up? It might make a difference.

All in all, I'd still have refrained from the accusation in a public meeting. And yeah, the sheriff's counsel did try to interrupt you, but you'd just let off a verbal stinkbomb. But that was your intent, right? Or was it?
Think Again

Why would you ever use the word "kickback" in a public meeting or post, a word which 99.9 of 100 persons would describe as an improper act. As a matter of fact, here's what ebster has to say abot that word:

"... percentage of income given to a person in a position of power or influence as payment for having made the income possible: usually considered improper or unethical."

The situation you now describe sounds much more like a rebate. I don't know if the rebate is good public policy or not, either.

But please don't play innocent here, Paul. You used a poison word to have a poison effect. If you meant nothing was amiss, you certainly didn't act like it. An educated man like you should choose his words a lot more carefully.

I'm not apologist for the sheriff. Nor am I a fan of watching a smart blog poster do a 180 on "intent." Not only are you doing the 180, but you're scolding Abdul and me for reaching the same conclusion any rational person would reach, when that volatile word is thrown about.

Go ahead and throw a stink bomb in a public meeting if you want. It's not attractive.
pogden297

No, you and Abdul are definitely in a vast minority when you're claiming I accused the Sheriff of a crime. I don't even think Terry Burns of the Indianapolis Times made that claim. Outside of the Sherif' at the meeting, you and Abudl are the only ones who have accused me of that.

Please point to anywhere on the video that I accused the Sheriff of a crime. You'll never be able to do it because it never happened.

What 180? I used the word "kickback" to describe a contractual provision at the meeting. I am using it today. Where is the 180? I'm sorry if you're unfamiliar with privatization contracts that have kickback provisions. But when lawyers talk about money "kicked back" by a contractor on a contract like that, we all know what that means and apparently so do most lay people. It is pure foolishness to assume that describing a kickback provision in a contract is an accusation of a crime.

No, really what was unattractive was the Sheriff's counsel trying to interrupt me the entire time I was trying to speak and standing inches away in a lame effort to intimidate me. I notice you don't even mention one word about that. Most people who were at the meeting or watched the video complained about that, not some phony accusation that I accused the Sheriff of a crime.
pogden297

Abdul, you have it completely wrong. There is in the inmate telephone contract a kickback to the Sheriff's Department for at least $1 milllion a year for doing the contract. That money is funnelled into the commissary fund. (No one disputes that.) Sorry the Sheriff did not like the word "kickback" but that is what those provisions in privatized contracts are called.

I NEVER said that the Sheriff committed a "crime." You apparently are just assuming that from the use of the word "kickback." That's not the case. I did and do question the legality of that money behing funnelled into the commissary fund instead of the general fund. But I never once accused the Sheriff of committing a crime during the meeting.
Think Again

Oh yeah, and for what it's worth: if a tree filed against Phil Hinkle, I'd be for and contribute to the tree.

There isn't a bigger gasbag in the legislature. Well maybe the Speaker, but he's got the power of his office behind him.
Think Again

Wilson, many folks on this blog think you "file to run" like they think you are "registered Democratic (or Republican)." It is amazing how the fine-point details get lost in the shuffle, and it makes me wonder what other points got lost in their lines of thinking.

That said, I watched the Ch. 16 tape. (God love Ch. 16). Paul often makes a lot of sense, but he sometimes veers off into the netherland.

Or, alternative point of view here: he may really know something. Which makes the council committee meeting a strange place to blow that cover.

Prediction: before week's end, many bloggers will have the sheriff barbequed and keel-hauled for takinng bribe. "Because I read it online." And I'll bet you they follow it with one of these lines:

"I'm a registered Independent." or:

"I'm a registered Libertarian."

Every so often, citizens ought to have to re-take fifth-grade Indiana history. For a rudimentary understanding of our local/state government's workings.
pogden297

TA,

When a contractor rewards government with a payment for contracting with the contractor, that's called kicking money back, i.e. a "kickback" provision in the contract. That provision is in the inmate provision contract. The money gets channelled itno the Sheriff's Commissary Fund. There are actually two kickbacks in the contract. One is worth at least a $1 million a year. The other I'm not sure about because I didn't have the other document that outlines that payment. Nobody disputes that they are in the contract or the money gets channelled intot he commissary fund.

When I mentioned the "kickback" contractual term during the meeting, Sheriff Anderson and others immediately assumed that I was accusing him of criminal activity. (My guess is they might have been intentionally playing dumb and knew better.) I see now that Abdul, a lawyer, and perhaps you, have also jumped to the same conclusion that I was accusing someone of criminal activity. I never said the kickback provision was criminal nor did I even say it was illegal. Rather what I asked for was 1) how much money the telephone contract was raising; and 2) the legal basis by which that money goes into the commissary fund rather than the general fund.

For the record, kickback provisions in privatization contracts are not at illegal. Whether they are a good policy is a different styory.
Taxpayer 834512

Does it matter? Apparently the Sheriff is doing a bang-up job as well as teacher's union management or the CIB. The good news is that apparently our financial straits are not so dire. We can afford law enforcement that purchases on the sly, convention/sports facilities management that (correct me if I'm wrong) hasn't changed a single slot despite continuing funding shortfalls, and so many teachers that we can keep the lesser performers just because they've been around longer.
.
Thank goodness times aren't as tough as they seem.
Name

Kip Tew filed late friday to run for mayor. Rumor.
wilson46201

The rumor is false: the first day to file for any office in the 2011 municipal elections is in late January 2011.

Home

Join

Main Menu

IB HOT LINK

Recent Comments

Links

FOLLOW IB

What Did I Miss?

RSS

Email Subscription

Search

Tags

Blog Audio Subscribe

Archives

Top IB’ers