Enlightened Conversation
The Wayne Township Board Thursday night , found Jesus, common sense or angry voters and decided to take a pass on voting themselves a pay raise, retirement benefits and health insurance. There was no discussion and I did a double take when it all happened because I thought I missed it.
However, at the end of the meeting I spoke to Anna Peay, who supported the raise. I can’t really describe the conversation but I embedded it in this blog post. You have hear it for yourself.
I don’t think Ms. Peay is a bad person, but, well, you just have to hear the whole thing for yourself.
My recorder got cut off at the end, but I think you’ll get the point.
December 11th, 2009 at 4:30 am
Ms. Peay, you are an embarrassment to your party, your township and yourself.
Abdul, one gentle suggestion: when you attend a meeting like that, I think you should go strictly as a reporter. Your back-and-forth with Ms. Peay was more taxpayer/citizen/advocate than reporter.
In other words: try asking the question only. Don't insert your own opinions. Here's why:
In a volatile situation like this, the subject's own words were powerful. Let her use as many of them as possible, without your “I was for consolidation when it wasn't cool” mantra.
We all know it.
It's a minor point, but goofs like this need more mike time. Seriously. If the interview is going to be ten minutes long, give her 99% of it to try to make her case. She failed miserably.
She took off on Bob Lutz–who, on the township efficiency issues, is a hypocrite. That argument is for another time. Lutz saw a partisan advantage and he jumped all over it. That's called “opportunism.” He was there when the former administration raped the township. Selective indignation isn't pretty, Bob. The main question was, and is: “why did the board even think about this?”
Poor Wayne Township residents. You were raped for years via the fire department bureaucracy and ownership issues. And when Democrats took over, you'd think you'd find relief. But noooooooo…..Dems saw it NOT as an opportunity to help, but as an opportunity to line David Baird's pockets and those of township board members.
These clowns ought to be paid $100-200 a month tops. Ms. Peay–here's a hint: you are NOT a township employee. You're an elected representative and overseer. You got elected, in all likelihood, not because of what you advocated, or who you are. Township board is so far down the ballot, you were likely elected because you were a Democrat in an area whose demographics have changed dramatically.
Call it ballot coincidence. Don't get all high and mighty about principles in this thing….you're on borrowed time. Evidently, borrowed time pays pretty well per hour.
December 11th, 2009 at 5:20 am
Going to have to agree with TA on this one.
Peay is a consummate politician…refuses to provide a straight answer. I could not be an interviewer. Simply listening to that recording made me want to commit violence upon her.
Then again, what's that say to the people of Wayne Township who voted her and her ilk into office?
December 11th, 2009 at 5:27 am
Normally, I don't play those types of clips on the air, but sometimes it makes for really great radio!
December 11th, 2009 at 5:33 am
It is great audio. Revealing.
Ms. Peay labors under the impression she was swept into office with a mandate for her views.
She couldn't be more wrong, or silly.
My fellow Dems/ plundering of Wayne, and their ridiculous tax-levying shenanigans in WashTwp., are more fodder for the gristmill:
Township government must go.
Maybe I'm just deluding myself, but I think it's harder for elected officials to be that stupid AND greedy AND misinformed on a countywide basis. There are exceptions, of course. I could name names, but…
December 11th, 2009 at 5:52 am
I'll tell what was enlightening conversation – the WRTV interview yesterday with Wayne Township Trustee David Baird. The guy was squirming and struggling and clearly unable to give direct answers to pretty much the same questions.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Well John Howard, that's pretty typical. David has…how do we say this in polite conversation…he has eclipsed his capacity in that job.
The real dilemna here is the true role of township government.
I was, at the time, angry at Susan Williams when she ran for state superintendent of public instruction at few years back. She advocated eliminating the “elected” job (she thought the governor should appoint). It was a novel idea.
Sometimes, it pays to think outside the box, as a candidate, an officeholder, and, alas…as voters.
Baird holds an office that shouldn't exist. He is paid pretty handsomely–undoubtedly the best paycheck he's ever gotten in his life. He gets a nice car, too…probably outfitted with radios and darkened windows just like the Center trustee's car is/was. So he gets to live out his testosterone dreams and make a lot of moeny doing so.
He couldn't lead a two-car parade in real life. But he's in charge of millions. And he suggested to his “friends” on the township board, whose only real job is to approve his annual budget, that they should give themselves raises and benefits. Never mind that they're already overpaid…by making this suggestion, he ingratiated himself with the folks who hold his pursestrings.
It's an insane setup.
Off with their heads. All of them. Put Kernan-Shepherd into motion yesterday.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Thank you Abdul, for the “May Day” on Peay day.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Congrats to Wayne Township voters for making it clear that now is not the time for raises and spending money that they can't afford.
.
Our Federal government is about to give you a Christmas “bonus” of health care “reform”, that even the dean of Harvard medical school publicly asserts will bring a decline in quality and increase in cost to the average American. If you think this and spending more years in Afghanistan trying to bring “stability” is nuts- then tell your Congressmen. NOW.
While you're on a roll.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Taxpayer's rightly concerned about a holiday bone us. It's wealth scare not health care. Ezekiel cry Dem dry bones? Oh hear the word of the board?
Consider the intellectual pornography of the current health “care” sham; arrogant assertion based upon the despotic deviance of “The Complete Lives System.” Here's one of many links to this disinformation:
http://community.comcast.net/comcastportal/boar...
December 11th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Eloquent post Dave.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Thanks for the audio Abdul.
You have captured the essence of why enlightened bipartisan leadership want to eliminate township government.
A complete lack of purpose, delusions of self importance, sense of entitlement, petty turf concerns, silly political infighting, and a complete disconnection with public expectations.
You would think that Townships would have run out of money providing poor relief money by now instead of dreaming up ways to reward themselves for poor performance.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:44 am
What is says about Wayne Township voters is that few people know there is a Wayne township or that they pay good money for this silliness.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Nick for King.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
More money is wasted in so-called “education” in a week than all Township spending in a year. So, the township issues are what in football we would call misdirection. Vent away for years over townships and thus give the big spenders a free and open passage to your wallets. Or, did you think the Legislators could work on more than one problem at a time while never solving any? If you want to record stupidity and constant stupidity at that, tape a microphone to Bill Crawford and leave the key on broadcast.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Bill Crawford = Snake
December 11th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Anna Peay is a friend of mine, but she is clearly so wrong in this interview. It's not about her or what the board doesn't get; it's about the constituent. You hit it right on the head Abdul.
I have to disagree with my friend on this one.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I wouldn't clal Bill Crawford a snake.
He is, however, a state employee (Ivy Tech). I love state employees, but if his timecard were to ever be audited I'm not sure it would pass muster.
Just like Bob Garton's used to be, and I'm sure Speaker Bauer is the same.
I am probably 180 degrees off here, but with any non-private-sector employee, I impose a 10-year limit. After ten years, they don't get my vote for anything until they've been re-educated in the real world.
Because as far as paychecks go, government is anything but reality. In most government-pay jobs, from teaching to these make-work Ivy Tech jobs, you've got to commit felonies to get fired or lose your job.
It seems logical, therefore, that too many of these folks have no rela appreciation for the give-and-take of the private sector.
I know that's a broad-brush, but it fits my practical experience like a glove.
Crawford's OK. Nice guy. Heart's in the right place. He just needs to go. Surely there's somone in that district who could bring some real-world experience to the legislature.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Eloquence for me would be on loan, a lien revealed in several of your posts. Merry Christmas to you too.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
OK, let’s extrapolate this to a slightly less than global conundrum–If you think you can afford a 10% annual increase in your property tax bill, then ignore this… Mitch's lie of 1-2-3% IS BS. If you own more than one acre of property, it goes like this:
Acre 1: Taxed at 1% of gross assessed value, subject to a 5-10% annual ass-essment increase, or 6-11% increase! (“HOMESTEAD”) BTW: The homestead exemption goes away in 2012.
Acres 2-5: Taxed at 2% of gross assessed value, subject to a 5-10% annual ass-essment increase or, 7-12% increase.
Acres > 5: (Also refered to as “Surplus real estate”!?) Taxed at 3% of gross assessed value, subject to a 5-10% annual ass-essment increase or, 8-13% increase.
So, you get three different rates poked up the same sore arse…Ain't that grand!?
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/bi...
Senate Bill 0004
2010 2nd Regular Session
Latest Information
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Homestead assessed value growth cap. Limits the annual increase in assessed value of a homestead to 5% unless: (1) ownership of the homestead changes during the year; or (2) the increase results from physical changes to the homestead.
Current Status:
In Committee – first House
Latest Printing (PDF)
Action List Introduced Bill
Fiscal Impact Statement(s): 1(PDF)
Indiana Code Citations Affected
House Committee Reports
House Amendments
Senate Committee Reports
Senate Amendments
Conference Committee Reports
Senate Bill 0028
2010 2nd Regular Session
December 11th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Because your cue is as short as Fat-Pat-rat-hat's tager:
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Limit on property tax assessed value increases. Limits the annual increase in the gross assessed value of real property to 10% unless the increase results from a factor that would have increased the assessed value even if neither an annual assessment adjustment nor a general assessment applied.
Current Status:
In Committee – first House
Latest Printing (PDF)
Action List
Introduced Bill
Fiscal Impact Statement(s): 1(PDF)
Indiana Code Citations Affected
House Committee Reports
House Amendments
Senate Committee Reports
Senate Amendments
Conference Committee Reports
December 11th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Oh, yes! and, there is also this! There is already a cap mentioned in the constitution:
ARTICLE 13. Political and Municipal Corporations
Section 1. Debt limitation
Section 1. No political or municipal corporation in this State shall ever become indebted, in any manner or for any purpose, to an amount, in the aggregate, exceeding two per centum (2%) on the value of the taxable property within such corporation, to be ascertained by the last assessment for State and county taxes, previous to the incurring of such indebtedness; and all bonds or obligations, in excess of such amount, given by such corporations, shall be void: Provided, That in time of war, foreign invasion, or other great public calamity, on petition of a majority of the property owners in number and value, within the limits of such corporation, the public authorities in their discretion, may incur obligation necessary for the public protection and defense to such amount as may be requested in such petition.
(History: As Amended March 14, 1881).
Updated: 25 Februrary 1999
URL: http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst/ar...
Comments to: Webmaster
Web Publishing Info: Law School WebTeam
Copyright 1999, The Trustees of Indiana University
Choke on that!
December 12th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Jack, all you are going to do is piss Abdul off by quoting our Indiana Constitution to him.
According to Abdul, we must be careful how we read this document — never mind that it was written for the common man of 1851 to understand.
LIEyers and politicians believe they, and they alone, can read and understand such documents.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Abdul has a different reading than plain English? I didn't know. Maybe he has some lawyer bafflegab to snow us with. I'd like to see him get around, “…or in any manner or for any purpose”. A lease is a form of debt in the real world.
December 12th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Yeah, what about the existing cap (Article 13, IN Constitution)? Here's some info from NYU that might shed some light on the state's Article 13 problem:
Operating versus Capital Leases
Firms often choose to lease long-term assets rather than buy them for a variety of reasons – the tax benefits are greater to the lessor than the lessees, leases offer more flexibility in terms of adjusting to changes in technology and capacity needs. Lease payments create the same kind of obligation that interest payments on debt create, and have to be viewed in a similar light. If a firm is allowed to lease a significant portion of its assets and keep it off its financial statements, a perusal of the statements will give a very misleading view of the company's financial strength. Consequently, accounting rules have been devised to force firms to reveal the extent of their lease obligations on their books.
There are two ways of accounting for leases. In an operating lease, the lessor (or owner) transfers only the right to use the property to the lessee. At the end of the lease period, the lessee returns the property to the lessor. Since the lessee does not assume the risk of ownership, the lease expense is treated as an operating expense in the income statement and the lease does not affect the balance sheet. In a capital lease, the lessee assumes some of the risks of ownership and enjoys some of the benefits. Consequently, the lease, when signed, is recognized both as an asset and as a liability (for the lease payments) on the balance sheet. The firm gets to claim depreciation each year on the asset and also deducts the interest expense component of the lease payment each year. In general, capital leases recognize expenses sooner than equivalent operating leases.
Since firms prefer to keep leases off the books, and sometimes prefer to defer expenses, there is a strong incentive on the part of firms to report all leases as operating leases. Consequently the Financial Accounting Standards Board has ruled that a lease should be treated as an capital lease if it meets any one of the following four conditions -
(a) if the lease life exceeds 75% of the life of the asset
(b) if there is a transfer of ownership to the lessee at the end of the lease term
(c) if there is an option to purchase the asset at a “bargain price” at the end of the lease term.
(d) if the present value of the lease payments, discounted at an appropriate discount rate, exceeds 90% of the fair market value of the asset.
The lessor uses the same criteria for determining whether the lease is a capital or operating lease and accounts for it accordingly. If it is a capital lease, the lessor records the present value of future cash flows as revenue and recognizes expenses. The lease receivable is also shown as an asset on the balance sheet, and the interest revenue is recognized over the term of the lease, as paid.
From a tax standpoint, the lessor can claim the tax benefits of the leased asset only if it is an operating lease, though the revenue code uses slightly different criteria for determining whether the lease is an operating lease.
When a lease is classified as an operating lease, the lease expenses are treated as operating expense and the operating lease does not show up as part of the capital of the firm. When a lease is classified as a capital lease, the present value of the lease expenses is treated as debt, and interest is imputed on this amount and shown as part of the income statement. In practical terms, however, reclassifying operating leases as capital leases can increase the debt shown on the balance sheet substantially especially for firms in sectors which have significant operating leases; airlines and retailing come to mind.
We would make the argument that in an operating lease, the lease payments are just as much a commitment as lease expenses in a capital lease or interest payments on debt. The fact that the lessee may not take ownership of the asset at the end of the lease period, which seems to be the crux on which the operating/capital lease choice is made, should not be a significant factor in whether the commitments are treated as the equivalent of debt.
Converting operating lease expenses into a debt equivalent is straightforward. The operating lease payments in future years, which are revealed in the footnotes to the financial statements for US firms, should be discounted back at a rate that should reflect their status as unsecured and fairly risky debt. As an approximation, using the firm’s current pre-tax cost of debt as the discount rate yields a good estimate of the value of operating leases. Note that capital leases are accounted for similarly in financial statements, but the significant difference is that the present value of capital lease payments is computed using the cost of debt at the time of the capital lease commitment, and is not adjusted as market rates change.
December 12th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Honest Abe once made a point with his cronies by asking them how many legs did a dog have if you called his tail a leg. Being from our neigboring state of Illinois, they all concluded that such a dog would have five legs. Nope, replied Abe, formerly being from Indiana, just because you call a tail a leg does not make it a leg. Both R and D have been complicent in hiding Article XIII from the public.
December 13th, 2009 at 9:37 am
The “new” caps are a tale. Article 13 is a constitutional cap or legal leg upon which the citizens ought stand.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
If you only knew how corrupt Wayne Township is.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:36 am
If you only knew how corrupt Wayne Township is.