When it comes to answering the question as to when school should start, I try very hard not turn into that old guy who has his pants up around his chest, while wearing black socks and white shoes, yelling at those kids to get off his lawn.

Unfortunately, I think I am turning into that person.

Here we are, the first full week of August and kids are already heading back into the classroom. Ugh!

Back in my day — see I’m at it already — in Chicago Public Schools, we started the day or two after Labor Day and wrapped up about the first week of June. Now schools are starting in early August and finishing up by Memorial Day.

However, there are some folks pushing for a start date closer to Labor Day and they want the legislature to step in and do it.

There are a lot of arguments for and against the early start dates. A quick hop over to the Indiana Education Forum’s website spells them out quite nicely. In the site’s words:

Arguments for an early start date

This is a local decision that should be made by local folks, not the state.

Early-August school start dates are necessary to allow the first semester to end prior to the winter break and ensure equal number of days in the semester.

Parents want the school year to end prior to Memorial Day. This necessitates an early-August school start date.

With high stakes testing, it is important to schedule as many days of instruction before the administration of the test.

The early school start date often provides families the opportunity to travel at less expensive and crowded times.

Arguments against An early start date

The agrarian calendar, a calendar with mini-breaks and a shorter summer, was ushered out with urbanization — and is continued to be pushed by those supporting the year-round calendar concept

There’s no research to support the assumption that students perform better academically if the first semester is completed prior to the winter break. To the contrary, evidence that supports the calendar configuration does not impact academic performance.

Teachers report high absentee rates when the school year begins in early August.

Many cite a Texas study that showed absentee rates from the first day of school to Sept. 1 dropped 60 percent after Texas enacted a uniform school start date law.

These are local decisions that should be left up to the locals.

I can see both sides of this issue.

I agree the old agrarian school calendar is likely outdated but there’s just something that feels really wrong about starting school on Aug. 6.

If I ran a school district, I’d probably switch to a calendar that was more along the lines of what happens at the college-university level.

I’d go late August to December, mid-January to mid-May, and then June-July.

I think by going this route, you allow people for vacations. And to address the issue of summer jobs, I think you could partner with local employers so that not only do students get to work, but they get academic credit for it as well.

It takes a little creativity, but I think it can be done.

This way, I can be my super-cool, urban hip self and not that old curmudgeon that I know I am eventually going to turn into one day.

With Indiana Black Expo – Summer Celebration being considered a public safety success,  it just might provide a new model for how to deal with crime in Indianapolis, not because of the heavy police presence, but because of the persistent messaging that was geared towards families.

As someone who has spent the past several years downtown on the second Saturday night of Indiana Black Expo, I can easily recall the days when the streets were filled with unsupervised teenagers running wild.  We all recall 2010, where Shamus Patton fired several shots and injured nearly 10 people.  We can also recall more recently a 16-year old who was murdered on the 4th of July by another teen downtown during the fireworks show.  Not this year.  Police and the faith-based community were everywhere and not only were unsupervised young people hard to find, but there were a lot more families, of all racial backgrounds, in the area.

IBE’s theme this year was “Family Strong” and it promoted that message in the media and on a number of days made it free for kids 12 and under when escorted with an adult.  IMPD also put out the message to parents telling them that if their kids get into trouble, they are very likely to be put on the hook as well.

And that is how you fight crime.  Yes, you do the traditional work of law enforcement.   For example, identify traditional troublemakers and put them on notice, but you also engage parents and the community as a whole.  I saw more 10-Point Coalition volunteers this year doing faith walks than I ever had in previous years.    And what was the end result?   I saw one arrest Saturday night, but as a I jokingly say, it was a white guy, so it really didn’t count.   Seriously, it was a man arrested for turning on Meridian and going the wrong way down Washington Street.  No offense, but that is pretty typical for a Saturday night in a big city.

And even the shooting that took place at the Courtyard Marriott parking garage was long after Expo had ended and it was accidental, according to IMPD.  Unfortunately, it was a juvenile with a gun, two things that do not mix, so that shows we will always have our work as a community cut out for us.

However, last Saturday shows that this community can come together and work together to address the crime issue and do it well.  And it’s not just more police that is getting the job done, it is more of the community stepping in and getting involved and saying enough is enough.  As Indianapolis moves forward with its crime-fighting model, hopefully local officials will look at what happened with Indiana Black Expo (or at least that second Saturday night) and incorporate it into their public safety plan.

In addition, with Expo being a much safer event on Saturday night, organizers can work closer with local downtown businesses to get those families into those establishments so it is worth their while to be open on that evening.

Expo was, for all intent and purposes, a public safety success and there’s no reason why that success can’t be duplicated in the rest of the city.

I purposely stayed away from television and most social media following the George Zimmerman murder trial verdict because I had no desire to have my head explode.

I stayed away not because I was mad at the verdict, in fact, I am pretty agnostic about it.  As an attorney, I understand how the legal process works and I also did not sit through the entire trial like the jury.  My consumption was probably like most Americans, I saw bits and pieces.  However, unlike a lot of people on social media, I made it a point to keep my opinions to myself, because I did not think I could speak intelligently on the issue.

I have seen people on both sides of this issue make some of the most asinine statements regarding Martin and Zimmerman.  When an Indiana Congressman posts on his Facebook page “No Justice, No Peace” something is fundamentally wrong.  When someone who does not live in an urban environment and the only black people they see is when they are flipping the cable channels says they are anticipating riots to break out, that person needs to have their head examined.

** PROTECT YOURSELF FROM IDENTITY THEFT **

I am sure there are a lot of lessons that can come out of the Martin-Zimmerman case, but the biggest one is that most Americans have absolutely no idea how the criminal justice system works.  And if cameras in the courtroom are supposed to address that issue, I doubt if they really do.  Trials are complicated enough, but I have to ask does it serve a purpose when most people just consume 5-10 minutes of testimony and then decide to play Perry Mason?

And even the layman who watches wall-to-wall coverage still isn’t an attorney.  They are not in the courtroom.  They are not observing the jury.  They are paying pain staking attention and detail to witness testimony.    They don’t know the rules of civil and criminal procedure.  They just end up having more knowledge to offer a more uninformed opinion.  And that is what I think is the real tragedy out of this case.  So many people are offering opinions about something they don’t understand.

There’s a joke I tell in my comedy routine about same-sex marriage. Once you get married, the sex is always the same! (Rimshot here.)

Now I make it a point not to tell that bit with my lovely wife in the audience, otherwise sex won’t even be a question when we get back to the house because the answer will be “no.” So, as Indiana lawmakers get ready for another constitutional amendment on protecting “traditional” marriage, I just have one question: Why?

No matter how hard I try, I will never fully understand the opposition to same-sex marriage.

I have yet to see what the problem is with two consenting adults creating a life together for themselves, being productive members of society and not encroaching on my property or reaching into my wallet. With that said, I expect a vigorous debate here in Indiana over the next few months and into the 2014 legislative session as to whether an amendment to the Indiana Constitution banning same-sex marriage should be on the ballot.

Now that the U.S Supreme Court has thrown out the Defense of Marriage Act, but appear to have left in place power for states to decide the marriage question, both Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma and Senate President David Long have said they expect lawmakers to take up the issue and that Hoosiers have a right to speak on the issue. It’s important to note that neither leader has come out, per se, in favor of the amendment. They just say, for now, that Hoosiers should have the right to have a say in the matter, like voters in 30 other states.

I always tell people to be careful what they wish for, because I truly think, for the first time since coming to Indiana in 2004, that if this measure were to come on the ballot in 2014, it would, pardon the expression, go down in flames. And I have a wide variety of data to back up this theory.

First, attitudes toward same-sex marriage have changed fast and furiously over the last 30 years.

According to Gallup, back in 1996 nearly 70 percent of the public opposed same-sex marriage. In the most recent national polling, that number has consistently stayed above 50 percent.

Here in Indiana, there have been three public polls taken in the last few years regarding the marriage equality issue. A Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll taken in March 2011 showed 43 percent of the public favoring an amendment banning same-sex marriage, while 47 percent opposed it. Seven percent were undecided.

A poll by political writer Brian Howey and DePauw University had 48 percent of voters supporting the amendment and 45 percent opposing, with 7 percent undecided. And the most recent poll, conducted by the Bowen Center for Public Affairs at Ball State University, showed only 38 percent of the public supporting the measure and 54 percent opposing it.

And there is no guarantee that Hoosiers who vote Republican will also vote for an amendment banning same-sex marriage. As we saw in 2012, Hoosiers voted for Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Joe Donnelly, Republican Mike Pence and Democrat Glenda Ritz. So ticket splitting is not out of the ordinary. So the folks who really want to push for an amendment should be careful about what they are asking for. History is not working in their favor.

And besides, isn’t everyone entitled to be as happy as the lovely Mrs. Shabazz? Of course they are.

Be sure to tune in all next week on 93.1 WIBC, I’ll be taking the helm of afternoon drive from 4 – 6 p.m.

Of course we’ll be talking about the issues that matter to you!   In addition, you can also catch us this weekend in our usual on-air hangouts.

“Amos & Abdul”

• WTLC-AM, Friday – 1 p.m.

“Politically Speaking” (Soon to be “Indiana Issues”)

• IndianaTalks.Com, Friday, 7 p.m.
• XRB Radio, 1610 AM, Brownsburg, Saturday, 9 a.m.
• WBAT, 1400 AM, Marion, Saturday 11 a.m. & 7 p.m., Sunday at 7 p.m.
• WITT, 91.9 FM, Indianapolis, Saturday, 1 p.m.
• WGCL, 1370 AM & 95.9 FM, Bloomington, Sunday, 8 a.m.

“Abdul at Large”

• WIBC-FM, Saturday –  1 p.m.

“Indianapolis This Week”

• RTV 6, Sunday,  10:30 a.m.

And if that isn’t enough you can find our opinion pieces in the usual places.

Indianapolis Star

• “The Black Community Needs to Stand Up Against Crime”

NUVO 

• “Fathers Make a Difference”

The StatehouseFile.Com

• “It’s a Little Late to Cry About Your Liberties”

While I have always believed our health care reform system was a mess and needed fixing, I was never convinced the Affordable Care Act was the best way to do it.  And a friendly exchange between me and IUPUI Professor Sheila Kennedy has reinforced that belief.

In a recent post on her blog, Kennedy laments that we romanticize about our nation’s “Norman Rockwell” roots, while employers make moves to deny their part-time employees access to health care coverage.

Under the ACA, an employer must provide health care coverage to any employee working more than 30 hours a week.  In the IU system where Kennedy teaches, graduate assistants’ hours are being kept at 29 hours a week.  IU is not alone.  There are a number of colleges and universities, and school districts, across the country that are limiting hours for part-time employees so they don’t cross the 30-hour mark.  At my part-time employer, Ivy Tech, adjunct faculty are being limited to no more than 9 hours per semester until the school can figure out how to compute hours and determine who reaches the 30-hour a week mark and who doesn’t.

** PROTECT YOURSELF FROM ID THEFT **

Kennedy argues that by limiting the hours of  part-time employees, these employers aren’t living up to the “Rockwell” image we have of ourselves. I think what Kennedy fails to acknowledge, either by choice or by design, is that someone will have to pay for the health care costs, and she doesn’t say where the money will come from. Allow me to fill in that gap.  When an employer’s costs go up, they have three options: raise prices, cut staff or  take smaller profits.  And seeing how these are schools, colleges and universities, option number three is not an option at all.

So does Kennedy recommend colleges and universities raise tuition to cover these new costs?  Does she suggest some employees get fired so that others can have health care?  She does advocate, “cutting the bloated administrative structure” to help pay for health care.  I doubt you’ll get much savings from that.  Now to her credit, Kennedy said she would be willing to take a pay cut so that someone else could have health insurance.  Did you get that IUPUI?

The problem with Kennedy’s argument, as with most supporters of the ACA, is that it perpetuates the system where an individual gets his or her insurance from their job.  I have always maintained that health insurance should be treated the same way we treat car and life insurance.  You buy the policy and your employer stays out of it.  People become much better consumers of products when they are directly responsible for the costs and you will find prices tend to come down when the third party subsidy goes away.

There is some good in the ACA, particularly the provisions that deal with pre-existing conditions, however mandating employers provide health coverage to part-time employees is taking a bad idea and making it worse.  This is something Kennedy should ponder as she goes to her bosses and asks for that salary reduction so that someone else can have health care.

I am sure somewhere deep down inside, my Democratic friends on the Indianapolis City-County Council have the same hopes for the city as I do, they want one that is safe, vibrant and has a high quality of life.  And we all realize those goals are complicated when money is tight.  However, one of the first rules of governing is to not make bad matters worse, and by passing an ordinance to take $6 million in Rebuild Indy funds to start a new police recruit class, the Council went down that road.

I recently explained in my weekly NUVO column why all this was a bad idea, so I won’t go into a whole lot of detail here.  However, at Monday night’s Council meeting Democrats made a new argument that is just as, or should I say, even more flawed than their original proposition.

They maintained that if the city began a new police recruit class, using Rebuild Indy dollars, the money to pay for continuing classes would be covered by the fact that you will have officers retiring and since they are more experienced officers, the city would be paying less over time, since the new officers won’t be paid as much.  They say the city could fill as many as 60 officers with the new class.

Here’s the problem with that logic, in a Twitter exchange at-large Councilor Zach Adamson told me IMPD loses 42 officers a year due to retirement and this would replace those officers.  He says the city could replace those 42 with 34 cops and the program is 100% sustainable.  But won’t that mean fewer cops on the street?  And haven’t Democrats been saying we need more police?  So doesn’t all this plan really do is put fewer police on the street and translate into less dollars for infrastructure?

Did I miss something?

There are number of ways we can put more cops on the street and fight crime without touching infrastructure funding.

Public Safety Director Troy Riggs’ is planning to realign IMPD and move up to 100 officers from behind the desk and put them back on the street.   And if that’s not enough, the Council could always take some of the millions the Sheriff has overspent in the last 2-3 years buying cars and increasing his staff and use those dollars to put police back on the street without having to touch road money.  They could also have certain Black members of the caucus stop fighting the expansion of educational opportunities for their constituents; since education is one of the best ways to fight crime.

There are a number of things the Council can do without having to tap into one time funds to create long-term operating expenses.  This way their good intentions can have good results as opposed to more deficit spending and bad fiscal management.

Today is our debut on WIBC-FM.   The show starts at 2 p.m.  Our topics will include (but won’t be limited to) the following…

• Panhandling
• Expanding Cold Beer Sales
• Indy Land Bank Controversy
• ISTEP Test Results
• Pacers
• And more…

We hope you will tune in. You can call in at 317-239-9393.  For some of you, here is a chance to put up or shut up!   See, it’s like the old days never left!

And if that isn’t enough, you can also find us in the following broadcast venues this weekend…

 “Indiana Issues”

• IndianaTalks.Com, Friday, 7 p.m.
• XRB Radio, 1610 AM, Brownsburg, Saturday, 9 a.m.
• WBAT, 1400 AM, Marion, Saturday 11 a.m. & 7 p.m., Sunday at 7 p.m.
• WITT, 91.9 FM, Indianapolis, Saturday, 1 p.m.
• WGCL, 1370 AM & 95.9 FM, Bloomington, Sunday, 8 a.m.

“Indianapolis This Week”

• RTV 6. Sunday 10:30 a.m.

There’s is an old adage that past is prologue, that if you want to know what people are going to do in the future, you should look at what they have done in the past.  That same adage applies to the Ballard administration and the scandal involving the Land Bank which landed two city employees and three others on the receiving end of a federal indictment for wire fraud and bribery.

 The case is pretty simple, the U.S. Attorney’s office filed charges against 29-year old Reggie Walton and 27-year old John Hawkins for a scheme where they are alleged to have arranged sales of abandoned properties to not-for-profit which in turn sold the properties to a for-profit group which in turn gave Walton and Hawkins a cut of the proceeds.  Even more disturbing is that Walton is accused of being a silent partner in a not-for-profit that was also allegedly involved in the scam.

The city has suspended Walton and Hawkins indefinitely without pay.  It is at this point where the administration’s critics are chomping at the bits for a Watergate/Benghazi type scandal.  The only way they will get their wish is if the administration gives it to them, which I doubt.  The city already took the first step in dismissing the two alleged wrongdoers.  In a statement released yesterday they thanked the U.S. Attorney for his work and reminded the media that they toughened the city’s ethics rules as well as whistle blower protections.

While statements are good, it will always be actions that ultimately matter.  One of the things I look at it how things were handled with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police department.  If you recall a few years ago, it seemed that every other day there was an officer somewhere behaving badly and his or her actions besmirched the good names of the officers who came to work and did their jobs and didn’t engage in activities like drunk driving or shaking down suspects.  The administration didn’t hide or cover up the bad apples, it went through the painful public process of cleaning up IMPD and it is a much better place now than it was before.

The same applies with current controversy involving the Land Bank.  If the administration is smart, it will launch a top down review of the entire operation and see where exactly the breakdown took place and how did Hawkins and Walton manage to allegedly engage in their activities without anyone internally finding out.  The U.S. Attorney did say they were notified via a whistle blower, but that person was not a city employee. One challenge will be convincing state lawmakers to change the current loophole in the law which allows not-for-profits to purchase abandoned homes and quickly sell them once they have been acquired. A bill was introduced in the legislature, but died.  So the city will have to examine what safeguards can be put in place once property is no longer under its control.

The City of Indianapolis is like any organization with thousands of people working for it.  It is unrealistic to not expect there to be a few bad apples in the bunch.  The challenge for leadership is how do they deal with the bad apples once they have been discovered and what policies do they put in place to prevent any other apples from going bad.  We will find out in the next day or so exactly how the Ballard administration plans to do that.  If past is prologue, it may not be a pretty process, but it will the city will be a better place for it being done.

Is Indianapolis City-County Council President Maggie Lewis calling it quits?  Find out in this edition of “The Cheat Sheet”.

Here’s what else is in this week’s edition…

• Playing with Federal Prosecutors
• Indy’s Smoking Ban Could Go Up in Flames
• Fishers Fishes for a Food & Beverage Tax
• SB 621 Almost Got Deep-Sixed

And more.

If you’re a Cheat Sheet subscriber check your e-mail.  If not, click here to remedy that.

And don’t forget, the Cheat Sheet is brought to you in part by the Indy Cigar Bar, the small business law firm of Thrasher, Buschmann and Voelkel and Downtown Comics.  Feel free to question their wisdom when you pay them a visit!