I told you how I spent part of my weekend going through a box of old papers concerning the 2005 police merger of the Indianapolis Police Department and the Marion County Sheriff’s Department.  Well I found something else in that batch of paper that might help some folks understand that a referedum on consolidation would be a silly idea. 

In Frank Anderson’s September 16, 2005 speech on consolidation he said, “Law enforcement consolidation must be the will of the people.”   Well one way the will of the people is expressed is through their elected officials.  So following that logic, the City-County Council represents the people as their duly elected representatives.  And if and or when the duly elected representatives vote to take control of IMPD from the Sheriff and put it towards the Mayor, they express the will of the people. 

And since the public elected more officials who were in favor of giving IMPD to the Mayor than the Sheriff (granted there were some other issues in there like property taxes and accountability) the Council is exercising the will of the people. 

In fact, on July 7, 2005  Anderson told the Indianapolis Star “the council must decide whether the [consolidation] plan would benefit public safety or produce the financial savings promised by Mayot Bart Peterson, a fellow Democrat.”

Don’t you just love these trips down memory lane and how they keep everyone intellectually honest?

My sources around town tell me there was a big caucus meeting this weekend between Marion County House, Senate and City-County Council Democrats to talk about government consolidation.

I’m sure they talked about what a great idea it is and how they will be on board and support it.  I say this because many of them thought it was a good idea when former Mayor Bart Peterson proposed it.

Most of my Marion County Republican friends have been smart enough to find Jesus and change their consolidation tune.  I hope my Democratic friends don’t lose him and fight against less government in a day and age when local property taxes are going through the roof.

Believe it or not I actually had some time this weekend to get a few things in order around the house. While doing so I came across some 2005 articles and clippings regarding police consolidation.

Some of you might recall those days when former Mayor Bart Peterson told citizens if he didn’t get police consolidation he was going to have to layoff nearly 50 police officers. There was an initial vote which failed but later turned around and passed. It may seem like a bit of a fog, but it kind of comes back to you.

Well in those articles, I found this line in a November 14 story right after the City-County Council voted down the merger 15-14. “Sheriff Anderson said the vote reflected the will of the people and he accepts that.”  What’s interesting about that line is that Anderson has opposed a full Council vote on who should control the police department and instead has called for a referendum on the issue. Even though there is no provision in Indiana law for such a mechanism and efforts to put referendum language in the original merger law were rejected.

If Anderson was willing to acknowledge and accept a Council vote as the will of the people in 2005 when the first merger effort failed, he should be willing to accept a Council vote putting control of the police department under the Mayor in 2008 as the will of the people also. The voters spoke in 2007 at the polls when they elected Ballard Mayor.

Perhaps the Sheriff should get in his squad car and take a drive down memory lane.

With all the news on property taxes at the legislature and the upcoming transfer of power from Frank Anderson to Greg Ballard regarding IMPD as well as all the other things going on around town and trying to balance a very active personal life, I’ve been pretty busy as of late.  So I have to ask you guys, is there something going on in your neck of the woods that’s worth writing about, but I might have missed?  Feel free to post it here or shoot me a note by clicking our “submit a story” link.  Thanks.

It looks like Congress and the White House have worked out a deal to help stimulate the economy by being considerate enough to give you back your hard-earned money.  But before you get too excited over this economic “stimulus” package you should realize that it isn’t all that much.  Individuals who pay income taxes get $600, couples who file jointly $1,200 and individuals who pay no taxes will get $300.  The checks would arrive in he mail about May.

That amounts to $1.64 a day for individuals and $3.28 for couples.  Pay no taxes and you’ll get $0.82.  Don’t spend it all in one place.  I’m not sure what you can do with $1.64 but I’m sure it involves a vending machine, a cup of coffee or filling the change cup of a homeless person on Monument Circle.

If you’re smart you’ll just write the entire check over to your local government because that’s about the time for you to pay your Spring property tax bill or you can put it towards your reconciliation bill. 

If this is the government’s idea of stimulus, I’d rather go somewhere and stimulate myself.

For the past few weeks Marion County Sheriff Frank Anderson and Mayor Greg Ballard have been in “talks” over who should control the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. A hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday on an ordinance that transfers control. The Mayor and Sheriff have maintained a very civil public front, even going so far as to issue a joint memo to the department letting officers know they are united in making sure citizen safety is a priority.   It has been a different story behind the scenes.

Anderson and his attorney, Kevin Murray, have been playing the race card in conversations with the Mayor’s Office and some City-County Councilors in an effort to hold on to the department. According to my sources, both Anderson and Murray have gone so far as to even drop the “n-word” on several occasions in their attempt to accuse the Mayor and the Marion County Republicans of wanting to take power away from the “Black Sheriff.”  I find this laughable because they both seem to have forgotten that the Black Sheriff has endorsed the very white Kerry Forestal, his chief deputy, to take his place as Sheriff when his term expires in 2010. By the way, that support of Forestal has also cost Anderson some crucial support of a significant number of Black clergy in Indianapolis.

If  I were the Mayor, I would not trust Anderson and his cronies half as far as I could throw them. In part because every time he meets with Anderson’s attorney, the taxpayers get a bill. But if Greg Ballard were going to work with the Sheriff and Murray on a peaceful and orderly transition of power, I would deny any request they would have to stand behind me, because I’d rather have them in front of me where I could keep an eye on them.

My anti-property tax friends are on the warpath these days over a lack of a repeal of property taxes.  They’ve listed a litany of complaints about the current system, but one minor point of constitutional law I submit to you they are somewhat misguided. 

They argue that Article One,  Section 22 of the Indiana Constitution forbids the state from enacting “the seizure and sale of homes for payment of taxes.”   That is not what the article says.  Section 22 reads as follows…

The privilege of the debtor to enjoy the necessary comforts of life, shall be recognized by wholesome laws, exempting a reasonable amount of property from seizure or sale, for the payment of any debt or liability hereafter contracted: and there shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in case of fraud.

This does not mean that the government cannot seize a home or property for an individual’s failure to pay taxes.  What this means is that you have a right to keep a certain amount of your property even when you don’t pay your taxes. 

I respect my anti-property tax friends’ passion for this issue, but I thought a point of clarification was in order.

Indiana lawmakers spent a lot of time dealing with property taxes on Tuesday. In the House, lawmakers dealt with dozens of amendments to Governor Mitch Daniels’ plan for tax relief. The Governor has always said he’s accept amendments as long as they achieve his goals of short-term relief, long-term reform, changing the assessment system.

Lawmakers kept intact, for the most part, caps on assessments and the elimination of township assessors. However they did amend the Governor’s referendum proposal for local school projects, taking out referendum requirements for construction projects for academic facilities like science labs but leaving them in for gyms, swimming pools and natatoriums. House Speaker Pat Bauer says he wanted to balance the needs of local school districts, while making sure taxpayers had a voice in the process.

In addition the House also passed $350 million in new spending, Democrats called it tax relief while Republicans chastised the majority party for fiscal irresponsibility. Despite that, Republican leader Brian Bosma said the plan was about 60-percent of what they wanted as a caucus and will likely vote for the measure when it comes up for a final vote.

On the Senate side lawmakers assigned SJR-8, the constitutional amendment to eliminate property taxes, to a study committee. Proponents say they will try to use other methods to eliminate property taxes.

There’s an old saying that two things you don’t want to see made are laws and sausage.  Today the Indiana House of Representatives are going to meet as a “committee of the whole” (that means all 100 members will be in the same room)  and offer up amendments to Governor Mitch Daniels’ property tax reform plan.  You can watch it here.  Wieners anyone?

(I originally wrote this piece 12 years ago. I always feel a need to reprint it as we mark Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Thanks for indulging me.)

Recently I had a conversation with a black friend of mine and she told me something I found was a bit disturbing. We were arguing over crime and how to deal with it when she told me, “Abdul, your attitude is typical of middle-class back folk.” I asked her to tell me what that meant. She then went on to say as middle-class blacks tend to move up the socio-economic ladder, they forget their origins, and treat poor blacks the same way whites do. I have to say I was a bit taken back by all this, because I was being attacked for my status in life which I had no control over. So I told her that she really needed to get grip and maybe the weave in her head was too tight and slowing the flow of oxygen to her brain.

I for one find it rather annoying that I’m accused of being insensitive just because I have a low tolerance level for crime, welfare, and people reproducing who shouldn’t. And I’m not saying these problems are exclusive to poor black neighborhoods so get that attitude out of your head right now. What I am saying is that attitudes of individual responsibility, self-reliance, and hard work are not the exclusive property of white folks.

Why should I send my children to horrible schools and stay in crime-ridden neighborhoods? What possible point could there be to prove? That I’m a well-to-do idiot? I don’t think so. I’m sure there would be some thrill in moving my furniture in my house in the middle of the night so no one will see and steal it later that day while I’m out working. Many middle-class blacks feel a sense of guilt at having made a measure of success for themselves while seeing the fellow “brothers and sisters” left behind. The logic being older middle-class blacks can remember when they were shut out of the “mainstream” by whites and don’t want to return the favor.

I for one have no such guilt because there’s a big difference between closing the door on people because of race, which has nothing to do with behavior, and having serious concerns about people who haven’t learned how to honor the social contract, which does have a lot to do with behavior. This is not to say that poverty and bad behavior are soulmates; both my parents grew up poor in the rural south, however they didn’t hop in the horse and buggy and do drive-by shootings either. What I am saying is blacks who are doing well should not make excuses or feel responsible for those who don’t. I personally am shocked at stories I hear of people voting against their own interests (particularly economic) for the benefit of someone else, especially when the end result is counter-productive.

But I know what you’re saying, “Abdul, other ethnic groups work together why shouldn’t we?” I am not saying blacks shouldn’t work together. What I am saying is that if you’re in a balloon that’s going down, the first thing you do is get rid of the dead weight. I am all for helping people who want to better their situations, but the only way people will ever make any real achievement in this world is when individuals decide they want to take personal responsibility for their actions and take charge of their destiny. And accommodating bad behavior is not the way to make that come about.

Thanks for indulging me. Next time I’ll talk about apologizing for slavery. Bye! Bye!

That was my attitude back in 1996. Funny how some things don’t change.