I’ve just finished reading Peterson Plan III, incumbent Mayor Bart Peterson’s plan for the next four years. Having followed the Mayor closely for the past year, there isn’t much new in it. Many of the themes he’s talked about: property taxes, neighborhood building and economic development are nothing new. The Mayor did hit a salient point when talking about education and high school dropouts. I have advocated giving the Mayor control of the schools in the past and make a new argument for it in my monthly column in this week’s upcoming edition of the Indianapolis Business Journal. I wish the Mayor would have focused on this earlier. By addressing the schools, he could have totally changed the dynamic of this race because schools tie into economic development, crime and property taxes and he would not be in the situation he is today.

Addition by Subtraction
I saw 73 new police recruits get sworn in Monday. I always welcome new police officers but we aren’t adding any new officers, because they will replace the 70-75 officers who will retire at the end of the year. The department has managed to add more officers on the street by moving some from behind the desk, but of those are detectives, investigators and upper management. There are plans in the works to increase the recruitment ranks by lowering the academic standards. Currently officers need to score and 80 percent on the written exam to join the force, that number is being lowered to 75 percent.

Loyal Following
I ran into Center Township Trustee Carl Drummer the other day at a political event. I asked him what he though about Monroe Gray, Drummer said Gray was his friend and he stands by him. He says people make mistakes, but you should never desert your friends. Maybe the Mayor could learn something from the trustee and finally put his arm around Gray at a rally scheduled for Saturday morning at County Headquarters. By the way, the Council did finally vote to move forward with the ethics investigation of Gray. It voted 28-0 to create a bi-partisan commission to investigate allegations against the Council President.

Peterson Plan III
Mayor Bart Peterson is set to unveil Peterson Plan III. It will be unveiled on the mayor’s campaign website this afternoon. I was hoping for a little more fanfare from Hizzoner. But like most sequels, the plot runs thin by the third installment. So hopefully the Mayor will unveil a Return of the Jedi and not a Star Trek III.

There are a couple items to report to get the week started and both, in a sense, are related to each other.

First, Mayor Bart Peterson’s campaign has been push-polling over the weekend. I’ve got a number of e-mails from voters who were annoyed at the calls. They say the pollsters talked about Greg Ballard’s lack of political experience and saying that if he got elected he would cut sidewalk repair and other city services. What’s interesting is that the polls seem to be pushing the voters in the other direction. This goes back to my underlying theory that the voters are really angry and there’s not much the Mayor can do about it, except hope they stay home.

Second, on Wednesday, the Indiana Tax Court will hear arguments on the city’s 65 percent tax increase. Attorney John Price says they will argue the tax increase was passed illegally because City-Council member Patrice Abduallah should have never voted because he vacated his seat when he moved out of his district earlier this year. The city argues case law say even when an official is elected improperly they can still serve, however Price says this case is not about elections, but the fact that Abduallah was sitting on the council illegally when the vote was taken. No smart lawyer would ever try to predict what a court would do, but looking at the city’s track record on legal issues (child welfare, violent video games, etc.) I would not be surprised if the tax court came down on the side of the taxpayers.

Like most of you, I’ve been dissecting the Indianapolis Star’s latest poll on the Mayor’s race. It shows incumbent Bart Peterson leading challenger Greg Ballard 43-39. Libertarian Fred Peterson polls at five percent. Some are criticizing the poll saying it under-represents African-American voters, so the Star did some adjustments based on 2004 voting patterns.

With all due respect to my friends at 300 N. Pennsylvania, I honestly don’t think the more African-Americans you ask about the condition of the city will change things all that much. I maintain that the high income and property taxes disproportionately impact African-Americans more than their white counterparts because of the greater percentage of poor and working class Blacks, due the smaller population.

But ignore the Mayor’s race numbers for just a moment and look at a more telling number, the City-County Council races. Forty percent of the voters say they plan to vote Republican, 32 percent Democrat. I don’t see any scenario where someone who would chose a Republican for Council would vote for a Democrat for Mayor. That shows the fundamentals favor the Republicans in this race. Democrats are privately worried as evidenced in this clip by their District 14 candidate Gloria Harvey on my morning radio show. Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Peterson campaign manager Mike O’Connor dismisses the poll, saying it doesn’t reflect the internal information they have. O’Connor is one the smartest political operatives I have ever met, but I’m calling him out on this one. If Democrats had a poll that showed something contradictory, they should “open the kimono” and put it out there. By not doing so, this feeds into the theory promulgated by the Indy Undercover crowd that Democrat internal polls also show the race a virtual tie.

Regardless, this race has now entered into a new phase. I maintain that Bart Peterson is now the most dangerous political opponent you could face, because he is now in a position he has never really been in before; the position of losing. He still has more than a million dollars in the bank. That money will have to be spent on a ground game and getting out the vote. The polls prove the Mayor’s television campaign is not working, because the more people see him, the more they dislike him. His only saving grace is to turn out the vote, otherwise come November 6, the voters will turn him out.

I know a lot of you are getting burned out on the election. We spent a half hour this morning talking about Dunkin’ Donuts coming to town. Democracy isn’t easy, but I think I have an idea to keep voters more engaged. Allow only people who pay taxes to vote. No! I take that back. Let everyone who pays taxes vote, but they get one vote for every $100 they pay in taxes.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s sales, income or property. You pay taxes you vote. If you paid $10,000 in taxes last year on the local level, you get 100 votes. If you paid no taxes because you are either poor or rich and hired an accountant you get nothing. I will concede everyone getting one constitutionally entitled vote, but after that the more taxes you pay, the more votes you get. The logic is simple. The government is a business and the people are shareholders. And the more shares you have, the more votes you are entitled to.

This is not a bad thing people. Think about. The rich will use their votes to elect people who will lower their taxes and ironically, will reduce their say in matters. So the next group can go through. What’s wrong with this? Absolutely nothing. In fact, I am willing to say this plan is so far ahead of its time that it appears almost magical. It’s really more art than science.

Who has a problem with this? Bring it on!

The critics are already coming out of the woodwork to attack Governor Mitch Daniels’ property tax reform/reduction plan.

The plan would reduce property taxes by 35 percent by 2009 by capping a home’s property taxes at one percent of its assessed value, raising the sales tax one percent, the state would assume the costs of child welfare and school operation costs and putting in place local control board to keep tabs on county spending.

For those of you who want to be big critics, I will concede one point. The devil is always in the details and those will have to be hashed out. However, now is the time to put up or shut up.

If you want property taxes eliminated, bring a plan to the table that actually adds up.

If you don’t like the one percent increase in the sales tax that would allow the state to take more than $900 million of the property tax rolls, what’s your plan?

If you don’t want the state to take over school operation costs or child welfare because you’re worried locals won’t have as much control over those programs, what’s your plan?

If you think the spending caps are too rigid for local governments and they need more flexibility, what’s your plan?

If you have one, great. Bring it to the table and let’s have an honest discussion.

Otherwise will you politely go somewhere and sit down and be quiet and allow mature, responsible adults to solve this state’s problems.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels tonight unveiled his plan to reduce Hoosiers’ property taxes by an average of 35-percent in 2008. In a live broadcast tonight Daniels said a one-percent cap on residential taxes and a one percent increase in the state sales tax would help provide Hoosiers with more than three billion dollars in tax relief. The state would also keep more than $2 billion in property tax replacement credits that it gives to local governments to subsidize property taxes.

Daniels said he wanted to eliminate property taxes but there was no way the plan would work. He also looked at increasing the income tax, expanding the sales tax to services and levying a real estate transfer fee, but none of those were feasible.

Daniels’ plan also has the state picking up the costs of child welfare and school operating costs. Local boards would also be created to approve all local spending projects and a referendum would be needed for some building projects. It would also replace county and township asessors with a single assessor per county who would be appointed by the county council and have to meet certain professional qualifications.

The two Democratic candidates for Governor threw some criticism at Daniels earlier today, both Jim Shellinger and Jill Long Thompson said the tax crisis was one of the Governor’s own making because his Department of Local Government and Finance approved the assessments which led to the high tax bills.

The Governor says it unacceptable that citizens would lose their homes because of property taxes. I have to give Mitch credit. For all grief that the property tax issue has caused this plan, at least to start, addresses two main issues, increasing taxes and capping spending.

Now comes the fun part; the Legislature and the public. Here we go!

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels will announce tomorrow his plan for property tax reform. Daniels will make the announcement at 6 p.m. for broadcast and over the Internet. No one in the Governor’s office is commenting, but from what I’ve been able to gather Daniels will not call for the elimination of property taxes, particularly residential but he does plan to get them as low as possible, including hard caps on spending.

Sources say the first thing Daniels did was try to look at eliminating property taxes but no formula worked to actually do it. In the past Daniels has said a constitutional element will be needed to address the tax crisis and that is expected to be included in the proposal announced tomorrow night. My sources around the Capitol tell me to expect a school and assessor component to the plan. They also say the plan will be “very specific” in addressing the tax issue and will include replacement taxes (i.e. sales or income) to help provide permanent tax relief.

One source who has seen the plan, and who has always wanted to eliminate property taxes says “it’s a plan I can definitely live with it.”

There are a few items from around town today that are worth mentioning…

What Property Tax Relief?
State Senator Luke Kenley tells me he hopes to have a list of recommendations to reform Indiana’s property tax system by the middle of November. One recommendation that won’t be on that list is the elimination of property taxes. Kenley says he doesn’t think it’s feasible to eliminate property taxes because all it will do is increase other taxes (sales, income). Kenley says he would like to cut local property taxes by 50 percent. Part of that would involve the state picking up some of the taxing authority, but also shifting the burden to other local taxes. Kenley says it’s best to keep the taxes at the local level because that is where the most accountability is. He also says he wants a more uniform system of tax assessment which translates into one assessor per county. He also wants to look at a local government circuit breaker that would cap tax increases and limit the rate of growth of local government.

First the Client, Now the Lawyer
City-County Council Republican leader Phil Borst says his party is not playing politics by filing an ethics complaint with the Indiana Supreme Court against Council attorney Aaron Haith. Borst along with several other Republicans filed the complaint saying Haith blocked and ethics investigation of Council President Monroe Gray as Council attorney, but Haith is also Gray’s private attorney who has represented him in some of the matters, which are the subject of the investigation. Borst says he did not want to file the complaint, but the integrity of the Council must be protected. He said he was going to file a compliant back in March, but decided against it. But since then, Borst says, there have been six to eight incidents where Haith has had a conflict of interest and willfully and purposely disobeyed city rules. If the Supreme Court’s disciplinary commission agrees to hear the matter and Haith is found to have acted unethically, he could be suspended or disbarred from practicing law. The Supreme Court disciplined Haith back in 2001 for unprofessional conduct concerning previous convictions for driving while intoxicated.

The Great (sort of) Debate, Part III
I watched the third Mayoral debate Sunday between incumbent Mayor Bart Peterson and challenger Greg Ballard. Neither candidate gave a real convincing performance nor said anything groundbreaking. It must have been the fact that it was Sunday morning and they were out partying on Saturday night. At least I hope so, because that would be an excuse I could live with.

In the interest of full disclosure, I admit to stealing that title from a local blog. But as the old saying goes, good bloggers borrow, but great ones steal. But I digress.

City-County Council Attorney Aaron Haith is about to revisit his past and return to a place he’s been before, appearing in front of the disciplinary wing of the Indiana Supreme Court for alleged conduct unbecoming an attorney.

The last time Haith was disciplined it was in 2001 for his drinking problem. Haith had been convicted twice of driving while intoxicated and the Supreme Court found “he engaged in criminal acts reflecting adversely on his fitness as a lawyer in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law.” Haith had his license suspended for a year.

This time Haith will find himself back before the Supreme Court for alleged conflicts of interests involving his position as both the attorney for the City-County Council and as the personal attorney for Council President Monroe Gray.

Two ethics complaints have been filed against him with the Court’s disciplinary commission. One was filed by members of the City-County Council, the other by private citizens.

In the Council’s complaint they allege Haith violated the Court’s rules against representing two clients by (in his capacity as Council Attorney) blocking an ethics investigation of Gray, who he represents privately. The Republicans argue that Haith should have recused himself from the matter as he represents both parties.

In the second complaint filed by private citizens, they allege Haith has allowed the Council to engage in unethical behavior when Gray voted on a procedural matter which resulted in the blocking of his ethics investigation.

They also alleged Haith violated the rules of professional conduct by representing Councilor Ron Gibson as his defense attorney when Gibson was accused of shoving an officer and also as the attorney for the Council which approves the department’s budget.

Both these complaints were filed without knowledge of the other party. The Commission must still decide if a hearing is warranted. If the case has a hearing and the Commission finds Haith has acted unprofessionally, the Court has four options it can exercise against Haith if it finds he acted unethically. It can issue a private or public reprimand, suspend him from practice for a set period of time; suspend him from practice with reinstatement only after the lawyer proves fitness, or permanently disbar him from practicing law.

The last time Haith was before the Disciplinary Commission he got suspension and probation. This time, in light of recent events down at the City-County building, he may not be so lucky.