State Representative Bill Crawford is calling for township government consolidation via referendum on a township by township basis.  Believe it or not, I don’t think Bill is all that far off.  In fact I think a referendum would be just what this city needs.  I’ve spoken to a number of the members of the Marion County delegation, Bosma, Hinkle, DeLaney, Sullivan, Merritt and Barnes and each asked about government consolidation in their last round of legislative surveys and each time voters and constituents came back in support of it by at least 60%.

Who would have thought both Lawrence and Wayne township voters would want consolidation?  Maybe they’re tired of paying for three fire departments (Lawrence) or a trustee who spent $40,000 with a local public relations to show voters how relevant township government is (Wayne)?  And how many families are waiting to bury loved ones in Marion County, but can’t afford to do it?  Where’s that poor relief?  And don’t the trustees oversee cemetery upkeep?  They should be able to hit that one out of the park.

I think if you ask anyone who pays taxes, they’d be in favor of moving township government reform.    If you use the system, why mess with the gravy train?   I’m not talking about the poor, I’m talking about most of the people who run the show.

Wow, I’m agreeing with Marion County Democrats.  Next thing you know Ed, me and our wives will be double dating.   The times they are a changing.

Two of the big questions surrounding the resignation of IMPD Officer and City-County Councilor Lincoln Plowman involve the words “what” and “why”?   What was the nature of the federal investigation that led him to step down from his posts?  Was there a violation of IMPD policy?  Did it involve his activities as a Councilor, a police officer, private citizen?  Why did he resign instead of stand and fight?  All legitimate questions, and for the first time, I think there are answers.  Note neither Plowman nor his attorney are talking about this.  Let’s go.

My sources tell me in late September/early October, Plowman was approached by an acquaintance regarding zoning for a business proposition.   He told him about an out-of-state developer who wanted to build an adult entertainment establishment in Indianapolis and needed someone who understood zoning and could get things done.  The acquaintance, who was actually a police informant, connected the out-of-state developer, who turned out to be an FBI informant, with Plowman.

The two met a number of times, my sources tell me, however after researching city zoning laws, they realized there were only a handful of few places where project could go up and one spot was in Decatur Township.   These types of establishments need to receive a zoning variance or be zoned IC-4, which I’m told is some of the heaviest industrial zoning in the city.  My sources says a  few more weeks of calls and inquiries went  by and no money changed hands.

As time dragged on and more inquiries were made, sources say Plowman and the out-of-state developer looked at hiring a commercial real estate attorney to see if anything could be done to find zoning in Marion County that would fit this establishment.   At no time, my sources say, did Plowman do any sort of background check on the developer.

The two would go out some evenings and engage in what some might label “bar talk” about the project, however the entire time the developer, my sources say, was wearing a wire.  A couple times, actually unbeknownst to the FBI, the developer would give Plowman a hundred bucks or so for the night out.   That information came as a surprise to the agents who were conducting the sting, because they found that out during one of the interviews that it had happened.

More time goes by, more research is done, more “bar talk” takes place, but still no money has changed hands.  However, it all comes to a head, my sources say, in late December where there is a meeting between the developer and Plowman downtown in a hotel.   They talk about where the project is going, and according to my sources, Plowman tells the developer, that given the amount of consulting time that he has already invested in the project, if he wants to go forward, it will cost him $5,000 for consulting fees.  At that point, my sources tell me, the developer takes out an envelope of cash, gives it to Plowman, and walks out of the room.   It’s at that point where the FBI comes in and tells him he’s been under surveillance and has been videotaped.  He is never arrested, but he is questioned about his activities.   Shortly after questioning, the agents, according my sources, start asking Plowman what he knows about embattled financier Tim Durham as well as other elected officials. These same questions are also asked to a number of witnesses.  Plowman is then let go.

Over the next few weeks the agents, one of which has been transferred to Chicago, question a number of witnesses about Plowman.  The questions included: has he ever tried to influence a city board member to vote a certain way; has he ever taken money for votes; has he ever taken money or pulled strings to get a liquor license granted?  The agents, as I mentioned in the above paragraph also ask some witnesses about Durham and other Marion County elected officials.

When I called the FBI for official comment, they gave me the standard, “we can neither confirm nor deny any investigation”.

As far as I can tell from talking to some legal authorities, if the government goes forward with its case, it could try to prosecute Plowman under what’s known as The Hobbs Act. The Act prohibits actual or attempted robbery or extortion affecting interstate or foreign commerce, thus the “out-of-state” developer.   The law was originally intended to go after union racketeering, but has also been used in public corruption cases.  Particulary when a public official uses his or her position to extort or coerce money from an individual.

As far as IMPD goes, my theory is Plowman would have been likely been disciplined under the provision that forbids merit rank officers from holding outside employment. While Plowman could have continued his leave of absence without pay pending the outcome of the investigation, he doesn’t have the financial resources to sustain his family without income, hence his retirement from the department where he can at least draw from his retirement pension.

Now the big question, is Plowman guilty?  Of bad judgment and not using his head?From what I’ve gathered, definitely!   If someone came to me out of nowhere whom I didn’t know and started engaging in a lot of big talk about how he was going to build an adult entertainment business and he heard I was his go to guy, I’d probably start asking for references.  Is he guilty of the Hobbs Act?  To be honest I’m not sure.  There’s information floating around that neither I nor my sources have been privy to.  And as these conversations were likely recorded, who knows each and every word that was said over the course of four-month  long investigation?

For now, it is what it is and we’ll have to wait and see how the rest pans out.  At least now, we have some perspective.

Straub said Plowman was being investigated both internally and by the federal government, but he did not go into detail.   He also said the internal probe was ending since Plowman was no longer part of the department.  He also noted it was an administrative, not a criminal probe.

He said Plowman did cooperate with the investigation, but had he refused to step down it was unlikely he would have been allowed to stay on administrative leave with pay and he would not have been allowed to return to the force.  Straub would not say whether Plowman’s actions were related to any of his work on the force or in an off-duty capacity.  However, he noted IMPD will review all of its policies and procedures.

At the same time, City-County Council President Ryan Vaughn called the investigation a distraction for the work of the Council.  And that he hoped a replacement could be done by the next Council meeting later this month.

Below is the audio from today’s news conference.

Plowman News Conference

I read the complaint.  Mansfield is says that since Plowman won’t talk about the pending investigation he should disclose the nature of the investigation and if not, take a leave of absence until the investigation is over.   She also says if the citizens of District 25  have a problem, they should call the At-Larges Council members for help.

Where do I begin?

First of  Mansfield is an attorney and even a  first year law student knows that when there is an investigation you shut up.  But that really isn’t the issue.  What I find almost laughable is my Democratic friends have suddenly discovered ethics.

I don’t recall them saying much when former Councilor Ron Gibson and current Councilor Doris Minton McNeil had their “issues”.  In fact, I recall of number of them showing up for a news conference Gibson had expressing their support.  Both were criminally charged for their offenses.  Charges were dropped against Gibson and Minton-McNeil beat the wrap.  I don’t remember any of them leading the charge in 2007 to get a handle on former Council President Monroe Gray and they all sat silently when Paul Bateman had his problems.

Now in all due fairness to Mansfield, she did propose an ordinance that would have prohibited then Council Attorney Aaron Haith (who had his own ethics issues a while back) from representing both the Council and the members as individuals.   That measure passed in 2008.

I’m not saying Mansfield shouldn’t have filed her ethics complaint and asked Plowman to take a leave of absence, but she’s had several opportunities in the past to file  ethics complaints, but apparently going after the guy who fought her tooth and nail on the smoking ban just seemed the right way to go.

Correction:   I received an e-mail from Angela today telling me the ordinance that would prohibit Council attorneys from representing Councilors as individuals was passed in 2008.  The blog post has been changed to reflect that information.

With that said, I still kept an eye on local goings on.  Here’s what I’m watching this week.

• Indiana lawmakers will be back Wednesday figuring out unemployment insurance, education funding and maybe local government reform.  Democrats say talks broke down because State Senator Brandt Hershman went to a Lincoln Day Dinner as part of his 4th District Congressional run.  Now some Republicans are dropping the line that House Speaker Pat Bauer wanted to attend an out-of-state conference this weekend and that’s why he adjourned the House until later this week.  No offense to all parties involved, and you know I like most of you, but the sooner you all leave, the better.
• I’ll also be watching the Lincoln Plowman resignation on Monday.  There are a couple dynamics at play here.   By stepping down, as opposed to being fired, Plowman will keep his retirement since he has 20 years as an IMPD officer.  Plowman is also resigning from the Council, I’m checking through my list of possible replacements, one person who quickly comes to mind is Tim Ping who briefly ran for State Representative to replace Mike Murphy who is running for Congress.
• Now that Bart McAtee has beat back a challenge to his status as a candidate for Sheriff for the Republican primary, I’ll be interested to see what the follow up is.  I watched the hearing and Friday and read the briefs of both parties and if I read McAtee’s reply and watched the Election Board properly, McAtee’s attorney admitted that between the time he filed for an exploratory committee for Sheriff and formally announced for Sheriff his job was paid in part by federal funds.  That could provide an opening to file a complaint later that he was in violation of the Hatch Act.  Stay tuned for that one.
• I’m also hearing that the anti-smoking people are going to try to give it another go around and bring back a smoking ban to Indy since they lost at the legislature.  I really don’t think they’ll have more success this time around than the last, although economic development and tourism seems to be the trial balloon of the day.  In fact I think, they’ll have less success since the newest member of the Council Angel Rivera, opposes an outright total ban.

That’s all for now.  I have a few hours left before it’s time to get back to real work, so I’m going to go hang out with my lovely wife who was gracious enough to let me have a few minutes and scribble down this post.

At issue was whether McAtee’s candidacy was in violation of the Little Hatch Act which prohibits state and local government employees from running for public office if their jobs are partially funded with federal dollars.

As an officer, McAtee was paid overtime over the years with federal dollars, but by the time he officially filed his candidacy in 2010, he had changed to a new position which did not receive federal money.    However, McAtee had formed an exploratory committee for Sheriff in 2007, which did raise money while he was covered by the Hatch Act.

The Election Board held that while there may have been past violations that the law addresses only current and future violations and that whether McAtee should be held accountable for  past violations was not within their jurisdiction and should be left up to the voters.

McAtee is challenging Dennis Fishburn who is the GOP’s slated candidate.

The primary is May 4.

I was going to spend some time talking about the questions asked by the Indiana Supreme Court Justices, how both sides responded,  and proffer a theory on how the Court would rule.   But then it dawned on me, it really doesn’t matter what the Court does,  voter ID will still be the law of the land.

Here’s why.  If the Court upholds Voter ID, say by a 3-2, it’s still the law.  If the Court remands the case back to the trial Court, Voter ID is still the law of the land.   And if the Court decides to overturn the Voter ID law, Indiana lawmakers will just pass it again next year.

Confused?  You shouldn’t be.  When the Voter ID lawsuit was originally filed a couple years ago, the belief was that the Courts would overturn the law and since Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, it wouldn’t see the light of day and that would be the end of the discussion.

Fast forward to 2010 where Republicans have a pretty good chance of taking the House back, 55-45 by my last count, and guess what?  Voter ID will pass and to make life even more interesting, it will be a tighter version to meet whatever Constitutional shortfall the Supremes rule exist.S

So at the end of the day, Voter ID will be the law of the land, it’s just a matter of how it happens.

• Lawmakers are still wrangling over education and unemployment.  I hear Democrats are willing to take a two-year delay in the tax increase if Republicans will give in on more flexibility for schools to move money around in their budgets.
• The House passed a bill allowing employees to bring their guns to work in their vehicles.  Watch for litigation to fly with this one.
• Although everyone is hailing the ethics bill passed, I haven’t spoken to one person either inside or outside the House and Senate chambers who thinks it will make a difference.   Also the provision that would ban lawmakers from becoming lobbyists unless they sit out a year doesn’t go into effect until Jan 1, 2012.  That gives anyone who loses in the 2010 election plenty of time to find another job.
• I’m still hearing lawmakers may not adjourn until tomorrow.

That is all.

todd rokita

league of women voters

I’ll have an analysis either later today or in the morning, but from my read, they seemed skeptical that there were no individual plaintiffs in the case who were victims of fraud as well no reported cases of fraud captured by voter ID.

I will say this, after following this issue for the last five years two things still stick with me.  First, I don’t see what the big deal is about having an ID and showing it before you vote.  Second, there have been six election cycles since voter ID was passed.  If you don’t have one by now, maybe voting isn’t a priority for you?

The main issues are whether the law adds an additional qualification to voting other than age, residency and citizenship and whether the provision that only requires a voter show ID in person and not when they cast an absentee ballot are contrary to the Constitution.

The law was passed in 2005 and has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, however this challenge was brought on state grounds.

The League of Women Voters brought the suit.  Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita is defendant.

Rokita says the law doesn’t add a qualification to voting, it is merely needed to ensure integrity at the polls.

I’ll be at the hearing this morning.   You can follow me directly on Twitter or watch for my comments on the left side of the screen.   I’ll have a full analysis shortly after arguments are presented.