Where There’s Secondhand Smoke…
The Libertarian Party of Marion County is asking Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi to probe Smoke Free Indy to see whether the group used public money for political purposes.
As I told you last week Smoke Free Indy posted a blog critical of the LPMC which could be argued was crossing the line from advocacy in politicking.
What adds a new twist to all this is that Smoke Free Indy advocate Tim Filler tells the Indianapolis Star that the group is an all volunteer organization that received no public money.
I’m not sure if Tim was just nervous and mispoke or if there was something else going on because Smoke Free Indy is the beneficiary of thousands of public monies.
I’ve done some checking regarding invoices and Smoke Free Indy’s activities and here’s what’s been submitted from June 2008 – June 2009 to the the Marion County Department of Public Health.
- Personnel – $38,154.
- Fringe – $9,136
- Supplies – $758.00
- Equipment – $2,034.
- Travel – $1,658.
- Paid media – $8,100.
- Other – $23,000.
- Indirect Costs – $4,000.
Personally, I’d like to know what falls under “other.” Now Smoke Free Indy may be trying to argue that since these are tobacco settlement dollars and pure “taxpayer” money their activities are okay.
Good luck with that one.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Maybe someone will know if Indiana still subsidizes tobacco farmers in Indiana. Too often, in my view, Indiana plays both sides of the street instead of just walking the one side (apologies to Ullman).
November 17th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Perhaps the dollars under “other” are related to the local economic impact of smoking study which smokefree indy and the Tobacco Cessation Institute paid for. Remember that study? It was conveniently introduced to the public at a press conference held just days before the first vote of Proposal 371(even though the study had been completed many months prior). From a PR standpoint, the timing was perfect. There was not enough time before the vote for skeptics to thoroughly examine and question the findings. The local media and other proponents of the smoking ban accepted the study’s conclusions as gospel truth. Newspaper editorials written based on the study demonstrated a blind desire to champion and solidify support of the smoking ban. The fact that the study had been funded by Smokefree indy and the Indiana Tobacco Cessation Institute was purposefully ignored. Newspapers make a habit of bringing conflicts of interest to light, but we didn’t see any mention of such regarding these smoking ban group's funding of the local economic impact study. Would any significant study funded by the tobacco industry receive such wholehearted acceptance?
Christine Scales
posted via e-mail to Indiana Barrister
November 17th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Pascal.
I don't think the State of Indiana ever subsidized tobacco farmers. That was the feds.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:37 am
The Marion County Health Department's money is the MCHD's, it's not money that is given to the coalition Smoke Free Indy.
As a coalition, every other organizational partner that is part of Smoke Free Indy that contributes to the shared goal of protecting Marion County from disease and death due to secondhand smoke and tobacco use directs their own resources, and Smoke Free Indy–the coalition–is not an entity that is even set up to receive money or spend money. It is simply that, a coalition, which is an organization of organizations that have come together for a common goal.
Smoke Free Indy is a coalition of state and local public health organizations, community based organizations, physicians, businesses, schools, the faith community, and Marion County residents dedicated to reducing secondhand smoke, tobacco usage and tobacco initiation through education, prevention and advocacy. Our coalition membership includes many state, local and national organizations, including but not limited to the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and American Lung Association of Indiana. For a complete list of Smoke Free Indy’s coalition partners, please visit http://www.smokefreeindy.com.
The organizations that are part of Smoke Free Indy who have dedicated resources to helping improve the health of the workers in Indianapolis by making workplaces smokefree do not all throw money into a giant bag that says “Smoke Free Indy” that's kept in some underground Smoke Free Indy HQ somewhere. Every organization that is part of Smoke Free Indy directs its own resources according to that organization's mission and they each are accountable to their own governing bodies, rules and regulations.
The organizations that are partners in Smoke Free Indy are committed to the principles of the coalition at the direction of their own governing bodies and donors. A coalition exists primarily so that organizations and people of a common purpose can share each of their individual activities with each other to maximize effectiveness of each activity.
Also, regarding the Hatch Act, there is a very helpful primer on the Hatch Act here: http://www.osc.gov/ha_state.htm
You can see that it says that employees of private not-for-profits are not subject to the Hatch Act unless the appropriating legislation that gives money to that not-for-profit explicitly says that the not-for-profit is to be be considered a subdivision of the state and subject to the Hatch Act. So, all of that previously your speculated about the Hatch Act and IAFP could not even possibly be the case according to this guidance from the OSC, which is the federal entity primarily responsible for enforcement of the Hatch Act.
Tim F.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I don't think that was the argument in the recent case in Terre Haute, Tim. And, that case went to the Indiana Supreme Court.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Also, another key point is that IAFP is not even the recipient of federal dollars, which is the what the whole Hatch Act is about.
Whatever money they might get as a grant from the county health department that come to the health department from that state tobacco prevention program, as has been pointed out here on these pages, is MSA dollars. MSA dollars are not federal dollars in any way, nor are they derived from tax revenues, they are derived from payments by the tobacco companies to the states as a result of a settlement between them and the state attorneys general. The state appropriates the MSA funds, and a small percentage of the total MSA dollars goes to fund tobacco prevention and cessation programs.
So, I can't figure out where would there federal dollars are that would have to come into play that would make the Hatch Act even relevant to the IAFP.
Okay, I already broke my personal rule of trying to get caught up in the comments section of blogs or newspaper website, because I probably could just hole up somewhere and spend all day here.
Have at it, other commenters. The floor is all yours.
Tim F.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Plus, I guess it seems that I make a lot of typos when I post to the comments section, as in my previous message, so now I'm done for sure. Sorry for the typos, Abdul.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I don't think tobacco is directly subsidized, even by the Feds. But it does benefit tremendously from an indirect subsidy through (common) restrictions in competition.
For amazing info on direct subsidies– including the ability to search by person and get data to the penny!– check this out:
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/region.php?fips=18000#...
My favorite Hoosier to type in: Mellencamp!
It's fun for the whole family…
November 17th, 2009 at 11:58 am
I just saw the Smoke Free website. The notion that the Libertarians are violating their liberty principles by opposing the ordinance is, well, stupid. There is no other way to describe it.
You do not have some sort of inherent right to walk into a private business establishment and be free of smoke. Smoke Free's claim otherwise is pure nonsense.
I really think Smoke Free's Gestapo-like tactics are really turning off people.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Eric,
Having grown up on a farm in SE Indiana, I know that they used to actually used to limit the amount of tobacco a farmer could grow. The reason why is that they wanted to keep the price artificially high rather than at market. I thought there were also other subsidies involved but I'm not certain.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Many of us are ashamed to call Mellencamp a hoosier.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Will someone explain to me the yammering outrage over a quasi-goverment entity using taxpayer dollars to push a particular agenda? They do it all the time and I don't see a big affront taking place.
Ever hear of the Wishard hospital referendum? How about every school district referendum? IUPUI employees, city employees, school district employees, state representatives, and voters get hammered over and over, sometimes by lobbyists that WE pay for- and NOW we're going to sic Carl Brizzi on this one? For SMOKING?
Don't get me wrong, if it wasn't for Abdul being concerned about having a place to smoke his cigars, the Libertarians showing some backbone that our regular parties won't, and the Indianapolis Star suddenly, very selectively, choosing to give a whit about lobbyist reform- we wouldn't have traction on ANY issues.
But, smoking is this big a deal? And, after this is over, we'll just go back to not caring about the rest of it: It only takes analyzing one property tax bill to calculate that Wishard is a worthwhile endeavor? As long as a school referendum can be framed as “for the children”- it has to be ok? It's strictly a “national” issue, so illegal hiring in Indiana is ok by us? Reelecting incumbents at a 60-90% clip is good government- we don't have time to tackle redistricting? What difference does it make if county levies can be done or efficiency is not demanded in spending- let's keep soaking property owners and to hell with the caps or assessment reform, Right? We don't care if China, India, and the Middle East using extended family to raise children if need be- that's the “old days”. Here in America we're proud to throw a check at a single mother and call it a day.
85% of Americans covered with health care, but pummeled by the cost. Our solution is to spend the money to cover the other 15%?? 2000 pages of “reform” that won't even apply to Congress are to be paid for by finding “inefficiencies”, that they could have looked for FOR YEARS?
Debt and deficit beyond any reasonable chance of recovery, currency facing devaluation and hyper-inflation pressures- and spending more money we don't have on the Federal level is the answer.
And, this is the legacy we're to pass on to our children: We tackled that “big smoking problem”?
November 17th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I have not heard massive outcry from bar workers or patrons demanding you to strap on a nanny state cape and come to their rescue.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
They do come across a little heavy handed and against adults being grown up enough to make their own decisions on where to drink or where to work.
People don't like to be bossed around and told what to do.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Taxpayer,
You're exactly right in pointing out other abuses of taxpayer money by groups advocating political causes But you're wrong to conclude that somehow makes it “okay.” I'd like to see those using taxpayer dollars to support referenda also looked at. If it's legal, it needs to be made illegal.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
To Taxpayer 823512,
Perfectly said. Low hanging fruit.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Hey Tim F…when are you going to push for a smoking ban in private homes? What else would you and your group like to ban?
After all, you and you alone seem to be the final arbiter of what is best for me.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
“”Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
November 17th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
As nonsmoker, I'll attend a “smoker” or fundraiser, to counter the brand, er ban.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Not saying “okay”, Counselor. Just my opinion that we have some curious priorities as a people these days.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Missed this one. Huh. Balance Ballard Budget not so balanced is it. Oh wait, Ballard is in Europe.
Fox59 News has learned IMPD has been rejected for a $1.7 million dollar grant to buy 50 new police cars. And, it appears more advance discussion with Indiana Criminal Justice Institute officials about restrictions for equipment would have let city leaders learn months ago they never had a chance to get grant money for cars.
“The equipment grants we give out are typically for $10,000 or less,” said Neil Moore, executive director of the Justice Institute. “If you look at what we funded in the past you will see we don't fund cars for large police agencies.”
IMPD was requesting $1.3 million for cars. The total request was $1.7 million dollars. The money is needed to match Federal money the city's taking to cover salaries for 50 new police officers in 2010. By taking the federal money the city has to guarantee it can buy equipment for the new police and cover their salaries after three years.
“We were a little surprised, we were counting on it,” said Valerie Washington, CFO for public safety.
Grant papers obtained by Fox59 News say the city is in a current “tax crisis” and is 18 months behind in collecting taxes.
The city also asked for line items including $70,000 for 50 new police uniforms, $179,000 for 50 handheld radios, $140,00 for firearm training, $10,000 for training material, and $3,950 for 50 pagers for recruits. The entire grant was rejected about three weeks ago.
“Since then we've been working with the controller's office, the grant unit to find alternative funding sources,” said Washington.
She also said the grant writers had consulted with someone at the ICJI about the requests for equipment. City officials say the federal grant description did cover allotments for cars. But Moore says local police agencies like IMPD know the Institute's history and rejection of funding for police cars.
“We only provide one or two cars for very small police departments in need,” said Moore.
Valerie Washington with the city says they've already interviewed police candidates and are in the process of making job offers. She says the city is doing a final screening for the class of 50 that will start next year.
“We're not really scrambling, I think we have plenty of time to come up with a solution. The good thing is the recruits don't need cars until November of next year. We're working with the Office of Finance Management and the bond bank to find other finance options to help purchase additional vehicles.”
Copyright © 2009, WXIN-TV, Indianapolis
November 18th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Where there is smoke there is fire is right Abdul. I hear that the Prosecutor may be looking into a Republican City Councilor who was trying to blackmail or at least intimidate another Republican Councilor into voting for the smoking ban.
The fallout from this should be good.
Let the Republicans eat their own.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:26 am
They are pushing for a ban on electronic cigarettes! It's right there in Prop 371. An all out assault on a vaporization product, that does not produce second hand smoke. This has nothing to do with health. This proposition is an attempt to eradicate a behavior and to eradicate a legal drug, nicotine. When you deliver nicotine without the combustion as found in a tobacco cigarette, it has the same effects on the human body as caffeine. Are you willing to allow caffeine to be banned because that's what is coming next!?!
Ask any of your councilors if they know what an electronic cigarette is?!? Most, if not all will either ignore you or openly admit they don't know what it is… including the sponsors of the proposal. So IF they are willing to ban something that they don't have any clue as to what it is… imagine when they decide that since cooking meat disperses carcinogens into the air, we must stop all restaurants from cooking meat for the “health and safety of our workers”.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:27 am
They are pushing for a ban on electronic cigarettes! It's right there in Prop 371. An all out assault on a vaporization product, that does not produce second hand smoke. This has nothing to do with health. This proposition is an attempt to eradicate a behavior and to eradicate a legal drug, nicotine. When you deliver nicotine without the combustion as found in a tobacco cigarette, it has the same effects on the human body as caffeine. Are you willing to allow caffeine to be banned because that's what is coming next!?!
Ask any of your councilors if they know what an electronic cigarette is?!? Most, if not all will either ignore you or openly admit they don't know what it is… including the sponsors of the proposal. So IF they are willing to ban something that they don't have any clue as to what it is… imagine when they decide that since cooking meat disperses carcinogens into the air, we must stop all restaurants from cooking meat for the “health and safety of our workers”.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Health Impact Assessments [HIA]and Environmental Impact Assessments [EIA] as prescribed by the WHO and the UN Crime Syndicate, are simply long winded descriptions paralleled only by; A two bit hoodlum walking into a grocery store and telling the owner either he has to pay “protection” money, otherwise bad things will happen to those who refuse to pay.
If your life is simply a process lived in anticipation of your inevitable death, you will comply.
If life has more value in your eyes, you will refuse to submit to the terrorists in white lab coats.
It really is that simple.
What was the effect and who cashed out as the winner, when both ETS and Diesel exhaust were declared class one carcinogens in the same year?
The ETS crusades and media frenzy are obvious, in spite of the much higher exposure levels and number of those at risk by diesel exhaust or heating oil and Jet fuel [AKA winter Diesel].
Media or Public health concern produced by the new class one rating of diesel exhaust?
Zip, Zilch, Nada, in the form of new precautions or protections.
Wealth and Oil industrial influence obviously has its privileges and smokers are rarely wealthy enough individually to compete. So they are the fashionable target of concern for the soap box grand standers.
While the trucks keep rolling, air miles cards are over stuffing our wallets, Public transit is praised in ever condensed communities and homes are still heated with highly carcinogenic oil without concern for the children at risk?
Tobacco smoke is said to promote cancers in 30-40 years, making “smoking related” more honestly “age related” Whereas diesel exhaust set the land speed record as likely the most carcinogenic substance ever tested, creating cancers in a matter of hours, not years.
So who is really being protected by the Tobacco Control lobbyist and the numerous other public health campaigns?
Its laughable now that SF Indy can present numerous political and policy opinions in the papers chastising non conformist politicians, for years and now when facing responsibility for their own actions, they claim Indy does not really exist?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Just running across this today, a week late it seems, but I'm a bit confused. If SFI is simply a “coalition” without any substance of its own, how can it have made “payments” for things? Somewhere along the line I had run across information indicating that SFI was a formal entity and recipient of the MSA “invisible” tax extortion placed upon smokers, and ONLY smokers (not any other portions of tobacco-company customers such as snuffers or corn-flake eaters) and had an annual budget in the millions. Was that information mistaken?
Is Tim Filler claiming that neither he nor anyone else working for Smoke Free Indy are getting any compensation of any kind for their work? Not even from the affiliates? Is he saying that all those “many state, local and national organizations” working with SFI forbid their employees to do such work on company time but just encourage them to volunteer their own hours in the evenings and on weekends?
It would be nice to have some honest accounting here.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers' Brains”
November 24th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Health Impact Assessments [HIA]and Environmental Impact Assessments [EIA] as prescribed by the WHO and the UN Crime Syndicate, are simply long winded descriptions paralleled only by; A two bit hoodlum walking into a grocery store and telling the owner either he has to pay “protection” money, otherwise bad things will happen to those who refuse to pay.
If your life is simply a process lived in anticipation of your inevitable death, you will comply.
If life has more value in your eyes, you will refuse to submit to the terrorists in white lab coats.
It really is that simple.
What was the effect and who cashed out as the winner, when both ETS and Diesel exhaust were declared class one carcinogens in the same year?
The ETS crusades and media frenzy are obvious, in spite of the much higher exposure levels and number of those at risk by diesel exhaust or heating oil and Jet fuel [AKA winter Diesel].
Media or Public health concern produced by the new class one rating of diesel exhaust?
Zip, Zilch, Nada, in the form of new precautions or protections.
Wealth and Oil industrial influence obviously has its privileges and smokers are rarely wealthy enough individually to compete. So they are the fashionable target of concern for the soap box grand standers.
While the trucks keep rolling, air miles cards are over stuffing our wallets, Public transit is praised in ever condensed communities and homes are still heated with highly carcinogenic oil without concern for the children at risk?
Tobacco smoke is said to promote cancers in 30-40 years, making “smoking related” more honestly “age related” Whereas diesel exhaust set the land speed record as likely the most carcinogenic substance ever tested, creating cancers in a matter of hours, not years.
So who is really being protected by the Tobacco Control lobbyist and the numerous other public health campaigns?
Its laughable now that SF Indy can present numerous political and policy opinions in the papers chastising non conformist politicians, for years and now when facing responsibility for their own actions, they claim Indy does not really exist?
November 24th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Just running across this today, a week late it seems, but I'm a bit confused. If SFI is simply a “coalition” without any substance of its own, how can it have made “payments” for things? Somewhere along the line I had run across information indicating that SFI was a formal entity and recipient of the MSA “invisible” tax extortion placed upon smokers, and ONLY smokers (not any other portions of tobacco-company customers such as snuffers or corn-flake eaters) and had an annual budget in the millions. Was that information mistaken?
Is Tim Filler claiming that neither he nor anyone else working for Smoke Free Indy are getting any compensation of any kind for their work? Not even from the affiliates? Is he saying that all those “many state, local and national organizations” working with SFI forbid their employees to do such work on company time but just encourage them to volunteer their own hours in the evenings and on weekends?
It would be nice to have some honest accounting here.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers' Brains”