The Rushville Truth

Road to nowhere has no money?

When I followed the development of the 16th street extension, I was…let’s say…puzzled by the approach that was taken to advance that project. When the city announced that it was out of money and could afford to pay property owners for their easements, they announced that the remedy would be to ask those property owners to donate the easement to the city free of charge. I know that the street extension will add value to those property owners remaining property, but it like the city was quilting the owners in a very public forum into giving up their rightful compensation to their property. More importantly, I thought this might set a very dangerous and potentially embarrassing precedent.

Well, now comes the embarrassment caused by the precedent. But before we get to the embarrassment caused by the precedent, we have to get through the identity confusion that seems to continue to exist in our fine community.

First, on October 14, 2009, the Rush Council was host to a presentation. The presentation noted in the minutes as ECDC. It is notes from the minutes as follows:

Commissioner Ken Masters appeared before the council to discuss possible infrastructure for Emerson Technology. The infrastructure would involve the extension of Cherry Street to county road 200 north. Discussion was held regarding funding. Masters did inform the council that a bond could be done for the building of a road. If INDOT builds the road the competition (seems to be an error—should be completion?) date will possibly be 2013 and at a possible cost of $3.5 to $3.8 million. If the county were to privately build the road the cost projection would be approximately $2 million. Masters asked the council to consider contracting Butler, Fairman and Seifert to perform a study of the proposed project.

Masters also discussed the drainage issues that are involved with the road proposal.

Pam Leisure, Chamber director invited the council to attend an information meeting to be held in the courthouse assembly room, Monday, October 19th. The meeting will begin at 10:30 am. Auditor Deborah Adams will inform the media of the meeting
Now 15 days later a story titled “ECDC seeks to extend Cherry Street” written by: Frank Denzler of the Rushville Republican Published October 29, 2009 - During Monday’s county commissioners meeting, Rush County ECDC Director Brad Buening requested and gained necessary initial approval from the county leaders regarding the possibility of extending Rushville’s Cherry Street north to CR 200N. The portion of the story related to this covered briefly as following occurs:

During Monday’s county commissioners meeting, Rush County ECDC Director Brad Buening requested and gained necessary initial approval from the county leaders regarding the possibility of extending Rushville’s Cherry Street north to CR 200N.

If the project is completed, the extension would provide an additional link between the city and the north side industrial park.

So first, who is in charge of the project? From those representing the project, it looks to be a collaborative effort, but some day someone will have to battle for the credit. So who is the lead on this project Commissioner Masters, Chamber of Council, ECDC or Emerson Technology’s?

Let’s ignore the Multiple Director Syndrome, most will invest nothing but ideas. The county appears at first pass to be the investor. But after some thought, we are forced to ignore the county for the moment because as we all know, the county is not going to build a city street. That being known, the city will be asked to pony up some money of their own for this one. So where will the money come from? I am assuming that the precedent has been set, and the property owners along the new Cherry Street North will be asked to give up their easements for FREE. See how can you pay property owners for their and land while not pay others a cent a mere quarter-mile away.

1. So when is 10:30 a.m. a time convenient to the average citizen’s attendance?

2. Did I miss a report on the results of the public meeting?

3. How will the county be able to ante up dienero with the additional budget cuts they were just handed?

4. If the city could not afford land on the other project, how are they going to afford any match on other projects?

5. Has this presentation been made to the City Council?

6. Who leads the city’s economic efforts?

7. Who should be embarrassed: the Bostic half or the Goins half?

8. Oh! Is this when we get our stimulus money with no match?
 

Trying to Buck the System

Many people emailed the site to get a better understanding of what exactly the residency rules are.  Fortunately, we have a reader who was able to provide the site with the following information:

IC 36-4-6-2
Common council; election; eligibility; term of office
     Sec. 2. (a) A common council, which is the city legislative body, shall be elected under IC 3-10-6 by the voters of each city.
    (b) A person is eligible to be a member of the legislative body only if the person meets the qualifications prescribed by IC 3-8-1-27.
    (c) Residency in territory that is annexed by the city before the person files a declaration of candidacy or petition of nomination is considered residency for the purposes of subsection (b), even if the annexation takes effect less than one (1) year before the election.
    (d) A member of the legislative body must reside within:
        (1) the city as provided in Article 6, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana; and
        (2) the district from which the member was elected, if applicable.
    (e) A member forfeits office if the member ceases to be a resident of the district or city.
    (f) The term of office of a member of the legislative body is four (4) years, beginning at noon on January 1 after election and continuing until a successor is elected and qualified.

This seems pretty clear-cut and black and white.  As the situation continues to unfold, we will continue to be interested in watching the results.

YOU ask the questions on this one – YOU are the VOTER.

And fittingly, HAPPY TURKEY DAY!

Local Officials involved in Secret Meetings?

I read with great interest that local officials, select citizens and certain business leaders have been involved in meetings about the future of Rushville and Rush County. Isn’t this type meeting the same meetings that those who were opposed to progress used in the last election?

It seems that unnamed local citizens have brought in Ball State University to discuss the financial stability and future growth of the City and County. Is it me or do others think that these meetings and decisions should be made public and open to anyone who wants to participate? I hope that this group will have public meetings, and I hope it won’t after the decisions are made and any real public input is moot.

Since this involves select citizens, government leader’s organizations, and the school corporation, this might be a power and money grab. A way of pushing through future referendums for projects that would circumvent the “Circuit Breaker” which has been responsible for our property taxes getting lowered. It would not surprise me if members of chosen government-funded organizations are there so they may find ways to dip into our pockets.

1. It is a shame that we the common man cannot be trusted by the powers that be to help truly shape the future of Rush County.

2. So who will look to gain from such a process?

3. Don’t they say that if there is ever a question of “why”, it is usually money?

4. What is the power play and who looks to gain from it?

5. So who was in attendance?

6. If done legitimately could this be a good thing for the future of the community?

7. Will the winners be given a nurse of their choice?

Could there be unbiased journalism?

In the past on this site, there has been a question of whether the media in a small town can be unbiased. This came into question specifically when reporting on first responders and those who they report to further up the food chain. Many claimed a look the other way attitude, while those who defended the claim always alleged this favoritism to be unfounded and exaggerated.

Let it be stated in advance that further education and training are a quality that we should all strive to achieve. The point is not decry a person for trying to better their life, but whether the checks and balances system can exist in this arrangement.

Let’s say for the sake of conversation we had a local media member who had been enrolled EMT training. Can a member of the media be unbiased when reporting about those who they aspire to work for and with? Can you feverishly investigate an institution that you might in the future make application to? Can you be subject in a situation like this? It is my modest opinion this type of situation has to lead a media that is by nature coy and timid in areas where confrontation on such topics exist.

1. So when is the next sitting for the Indiana Department of Homeland Security Emergency Service EMT and Paramedic State Exam Certification program?

2. Is this what they mean when they say ‘advocacy journalism?’

3. Does this type situation stifle creative investigative journalism?

4. Can you report during the day and ride during the night?

5. Can the general public connect the dots that lead from this story to those stories that were not covered or under covered by the media in the past?

6. When they say it starts at the top, where is the top?

In closing, best of luck on the exam and hopes for a bright and successful future!  Maybe the next generation of media will not aspire to become those they report about.

Referendums - Could they be abused in the future?

You might be asking yourself, “What is a referendum?” It is placing a topic on general election ballot.

The new referendum provisions take the place of the old system of dueling petition drives across the effected taxing district.

The referendums being discussed most heatedly are the ones required due to the fact they qualify as large capital spending projects. Those who support the referendum system claim it to be more direct and offer a truer sense of whether taxpayers are willing to support a project or not.

Simply stated, if the majority of the voters voting on the public question vote in favor of the public question, the political subdivision may issue the proposed bonds or enter into the proposed lease rental required to fund the project.
On the other hand, if a majority of the voters voting on the public question vote in opposition, the political subdivision may not issue the bonds or enter into the lease proposed lease rental. Another public question on the same or substantially similar public question may not be submitted to the voters earlier than one year after the date of the election.

The basics of the qualifications of the system are roughly defined as follows: Elementary and middle school construction projects are subject to the referendum process 1) if the projected cost is more than $10 million and 2) high school construction projects are subject to the referendum process if the projected cost is more than $20 million. Construction projects with projected costs less than these thresholds but greater than $2 million will be subject to the petition and remonstrance process. In either process, if a majority of the participating individuals are in favor of the project, the district may proceed with the construction process.

The guidelines for upcoming referenda are pursuant to IC 6-1.1-20-3.6(k), a political subdivision for which a public question regarding a controlled project is to be placed on the ballot to be voted on at a public question, must submit to the Department of Local Government Finance ("Department"), at least thirty (30) days before the election, the below information regarding the proposed controlled project for posting on the Department's Web site.

The most notable capital projects went to a referendum in the last general election are as follows:

Batesville Community School Corporation, Franklin and Ripley Counties -FAILED
MSD of Perry Township, Marion County-FAILED
Southwest Dubois County School Corporation, Dubois County-PASSED
Tell City - Troy Township School Corporation, Perry County-FAILED
Hamilton Southeastern Schools, Hamilton County-PASSED
Southern Wells Community Schools, Wells County-PASSED
Franklin Township Community School Corporation, Marion County-FAILED
Franklin Township Community School Corporation, Marion County-FAILED
Beech Grove City Schools, Marion County-PASSED

Wishard Hospital Project, Marion County-PASSED

Is a referendum a tax increase? Yes, a referendum could allow your government agency to increase the tax rate above the level set forth in the state caps.

Many have wondered why people favored raising taxes for Wishard and not the schools. Quite simply, voters were hoodwinked into believing they were not voting for a property tax increase when they voted on the Wishard referendum. The wording of the school referenda left no doubt those voters were voting for a property tax increase. This is evidence of how easily the public can be fooled.

The following quote has been attributed Senator Luke Kenley regarding the Wishard referendum. If this is in-fact a correct quote it does give some insight into possible abuse in such a system:

"I can understand your frustration, but your blame on the legislature is misplaced. When this was originally requested, they didn't want it to go to a referendum. My position was that if Marion Co. legislators wanted it, that they could put a referendum on the ballot. I was, and am skeptical that this bond will not eventually rely on property taxes."
Should voters get the power to approve or reject expensive public projects in referendums? Well, the state lawmakers have said “yes.” The opinion of those in leadership and special interest seem to agree, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, notes that half of property tax bills go to fund local schools, including capital projects and debt service. The referendum would allow more taxpayer input into that. Those from the agricultural communities have said they would stop short of endorsing referendums across the board but have admitted that they are “better than nothing.” Some have noted the new system as a victory for farmers. If approving a project in a referendum causes property taxes due to exceed a homeowner’s cap, the homeowner is not off the hook, he notes. Any debt service levy approved by referendum is not subject to the cap in the final language of the bill.

Questions:

1. Can anyone think how a referendum might be abused at a local level?

2. Do you think there has been abuse in public funding of projects in the past?

3. Do you think that projects approved under the dueling petition drives would have had the same results under the referendum system?

4. Will the referendum system be tested locally for any projects?

Are they eating their young?

The claim that politicians have no friends may well have been proven on October 30, 2009 when Mayor Merv Bostic fired “his ‘friend’ of forty years or longer.”   In his recount of the firing of Don Jarman in the local paper, the Mayor narrates an artful depiction of a complex a caring struggle.

In the earlier story in the paper, it was noted that Jarman declined to comment, saying only that he was going to look into his available options.  Well, it appears that Jarman has reviewed his options, and his best option is to retort to the earlier Bostic article.

Merv Bostic portrayed the major portion of the working relationship as smooth.  His recount of the termination appeared heart-wrenching and uncomfortable, as he said “I had no choice. I did not put him in the situation that he was in.  I had no other choice but to terminate him.”  In another related quote Mayor Bostic gave an account of the termination as “I told Donnie that it was not working out, and I am relieving you of your duties.”

The Jarman recount paints a different and varied working environment. In which he states, “I agree with that things went smoothly, but after the first two months. I had figured out that I couldn’t disagree with him (Mayor Bostic). There were several times we (assistant animal control officer Jamie Glandon and I did things we didn’t agree with just to keep him happy. I could give examples, but I don’t see a need to do that. There is a time when you can’t do that anymore and now is that time,” Jarman said.

In response to the claims of cleanliness complaints, “I’m saying that they (previous animal control officers) were not concentrating on saving the animals as we were. I don’t believe that Merv (Bostic) ever understood that it was a full-time job to save them (the animals) from being put down,” Jarman said.  Jarman also added that volunteers from WorkOne and others directed to the shelter by township trustees did a great job at keeping the shelter as clean as possible.  “I believe this is a slap in the face to all of them. I believe they did a great job and I’m sorry for them that this happened. I would also like to take this time to say that I am very proud of the job Jamie and I and all of these above people have done over the past 18 months,” Jarman said.

It was commented in the paper that Jarman continued by saying that his disagreement with the mayor regarding Glandon’s dismissal a month earlier may have led to his termination as well.

Although the story was appreciated by the readers of the paper, it seems to leave more questions than answers.

Here are some of those questions:

1. Is this the same Jarman that was one of the Bostic campaign cronies?

2. Do you think the Mayor can spell ‘insubordination’?

3. Couldn’t all department heads be fired monthly if it was based on citizen complaints?

4. If the there is no written record of the complaint is it actionable?

5. Did the “independent investigator” Ron Cameron provide evidence and a report of the complaints?

6. Did anyone else notice the local paper did an adequate job on presenting both sides of this story?

7. Now was it that hard?

8. Will there be more to come from this story?

9. By the way, where was the other Mayor?

 

Veterans Day 2009

It is Veteran’s Day, and I could use this blog to promote another topic that I think deserves to be brought to light, but as long as I carry on this effort I will always devote this day to those who have served our country in the armed forces. This goes out to all the soldiers, those who returned and those who paid the ultimate price throughout our history. The honor is more significant now due to the fact we have troops in harm’s way in two active arenas. Following are a few pieces that pay tribute to those who have served. 

It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to demonstrate.
It’s the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial. 
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves under the flag and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives the protester the right to burn the flag.

PRAYER TO OUR DEPARTED COMRADES
Author: Unknown

Don't grieve for me, for now I am free,
I'm following the path God laid for me.
I took his hand when I heard Him call,
I turned my back and left it all.

I could not stay another day,
to laugh, to love, to work or play.
Tasks left undone must stay that way.
I found that peace at the close of day.

If my parting has left a void,
then fill it with remembered joys.
A friendship shared, a laugh, a kiss,
ah yes, these things I too will miss.

Be not burdened with times of sorrow,
I wish you the sunshine of tomorrow.
My life's been full, I savored much.
Good friends, good times, a loved one's touch.

Perhaps my time seemed all too brief.
Don't lengthen it now with undue grief.
Lift up your hearts and share with me.
God wanted me now; He set me free.

Out of Bounds?

It appears some old familiar ghosts have returned to haunt Rushville and Rush County. So what did these following political figures have in common: Jeff Hufford, John Worth and Joe Hogsett? At one point in time, each one had questions related to their residences. It has been brought to the RT’s attention that we might have this question re-surfacing.

City and county council members are either elected to a district or at large. If you are elected at large, you are elected to represent all districts and can thus live in any district within the city. If you live in any of the districts you represent, you must live in the specific district you were elected to represent. At all times, you have to live in that specific district. If you were to no longer reside in that district, you are to forfeit your seat and the political party of the elected official will caucus to replace the elected official with another member of the party residing in the district to fill out his term in office.

Rushville City is broken into 3 districts. The county has 4 districts. The city has one council person elected to represent each of the 3 districts and 2 council persons at large. The county council has one person elected to represent each of the 4 county districts and 3 council persons at large.

In the following story, I will change the names to protect the innocent or of those who might be guilty.

Let’s say that a council person and their spouse were in the midst of a marital separation, and the elected official moves out of the primary residence and moves in with their son. The son does not live in the district that the husband was elected to represent. At that point in time, the representative is violating state election laws. The representative will most likely make the argument that they still own property in the district. Is that argument defendable?

1. Does the law state that the residence is to be the primary residence?

2. Is there a grace period called out in the state election code?

3. Does the state election law have a “separation” clause?

4. Are the votes made after the move valid or are they voided?

5. Would this post be considered for an anonymous complaint for the election board?

6. Will the party in question be forth right and proactive in replacing the elected official?

7. Who is the elected official?

GOP gains a referendum on Obama administration?

The Republican Party scored two gubernatorial wins in New Jersey and Virginia. The question that this exposes is whether this will mark a troubling turn for President Obama, whose personal efforts couldn't stop the fall of Democrats facing a voter backlash. The President personally campaigned for each of these candidates.

Were these Republican victories a result of voter backlash over the economy and a notable uptick in the government's would-be role in people's lives?

Obama's 2008 victory in Old Dominion had marked an historic breakthrough for Democrats who hadn't won Virginia's electoral votes since 1964. The fight in the Garden State was more grueling than usually accompanies Democratic campaigns in the reliably blue state of New Jersey.

So these setbacks demonstrate the difficulty of presidential leadership following a campaign built on promises of unity and transparency followed by clandestine negotiations, divisive policies and a relentless campaign approach toward big legislative issues like the stimulus and health care bills.

“What this is tonight, this victory here tonight, is a warning shot, and it says to the moderate Democrats in the House that they ought to think twice about continuing to pursue the policies of this White House and (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi," said Virginia Republican Rep., Eric Cantor.

In Virginia, Republican Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell roundly defeated Democrat R. Creigh Deeds. In the other gubernatorial race in New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie pulled off a stunning upset over incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine, who was facing a backlash over property taxes and other economic issues.

The viewpoint from the leadership of the Democratic Party has been quite to the contrary. Some Democratic leaders have even touted the off-year election as a victory for the Democrats. They are basing that claim on the results of the New York's 23rd Congressional District, where an unexpected turn of events put Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in direct competition with Democrat Bill Owens for the seat held by former Republican congressman and current Obama Army Secretary John McHugh. Owens was determined the winner in a close contest.

In an uncommon practice, the White House issued a statement after the GOP win in Virginia saying the president was not watching election returns and would not be making any remarks on the results.

Needless to say, the election outcomes were sure to feed discussion about the state of the electorate, the status of the electorate that sent the Obama administration to the White House. There will be questions as to the staying power of the president's influence -- on the party's base of support and on current moderate lawmakers needed to advance his legislative priorities.

In the two 2009 gubernatorial elections the President went as far as to deploy his political campaign arm, organizing for America, to try to ensure the swarms of party loyalists and new voters he attracted in 2008 would turn out.

Those conducting the exit polls showed that nearly a third of voters in Virginia Tuesday described themselves as independents, and they preferred the Republican to the Democrat by almost a 2-1 margin.

The outcome showed that "the Obama movement, the coalition, isn't transferable," said Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers, a Fox News contributor. "There was a decline in minority voters, a decline in young voters. You weren't seeing these people who turned out in huge force for Obama turning out for other Democrats. And so they're now going to have to step back and say, 'Wait a minute, I'm going to have to take care of myself.'"
Obama needs all the lawmakers he can get to pass his legislative priorities of health care and climate change. Defeats Tuesday could make it harder for him to persuade moderate Democrats from conservative areas to get on board. They have been hearing from voters worried about his expansion of government at a time of rising deficits.

As if on cue, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid also indicated Tuesday that Congress may not complete health care legislation this year, missing Obama's deadline on his signature issue and pushing debate into a congressional election year.

The vote is "more about the policies of the president more than the personalities," said Washington Times columnist Tony Blankely. "The public is getting really scared of his policies and I think that's what we're seeing in all of these elections. ... Obama has moved the policy so far to the left that now you're seeing this big movement back and I think we're only seeing the beginning of it."

Defeats could point to future problems for Democrats, particularly in moderate districts and in swing states like Ohio, Colorado and Nevada. In 2010, most governors, a third of the Senate and all members of the House of Representatives will be on ballots.

(Excepts and quotes from this article were featured on Fox News.)

Questions:

1. Does this disprove the death of conservatism?

2. Does this signal a degree of displeasure in the current administration and signaled potential problems ahead as he seeks to achieve his policy goals?

3. In 2010, can the Democratic Party protect majorities in Congress?

4. Will this translate on a local level?

5. Will this make congressmen who are up for re-election think twice before voting blindly for the President's government reforms?

How Lack of Communication Causes “Team Environments” to Fail

Some of the times if you take the bits and pieces of information floating around in the media and put it all in one location, it can shed some light on issues. The first excerpt is what was reported in the local newspaper under the title of “73 New Jobs Coming to Town” on October 21, 2009.

Below the online article, you will find two comments apparently submitted by the Rushville Chamber Director in response to the apparent leak of confidential information in the article. The information was obviously not to be release to the media, but the local city elected officials must have gotten so giddy about the possible creation of the 73 jobs, they just could not contain themselves.

The final portion of this posting is the response made to the local newspaper’s article posted in the Monticello newspaper.

Rushville Republican Article

Resolution 2009-14, passed unanimously by the Rushville Common Council Tuesday evening, paves the way for Jordan Manufacturing of Monticello to open a manufacturing operation in Rushville with the help of a state grant.

The manufacturing plant will open in the former Schnadig building on 11th Street. The plant will produce a component currently being manufactured in China.

Concerns over product quality led Jordan Manufacturing to seek state assistance in bringing this manufacturing operation — and ultimately 73 jobs — back to Indiana.

“They are real down-to-earth and went out of their way to give us a tour,” Mayor Mervyn Bostic said regarding a recent trip to Jordan’s Monticello plant.

Councilman Mike Buckley made the motion to approve the resolution with a second from Al Shelton. -- Melissa Conrad, For the Republican

Chamber Director Comments in Comment section below the article

The team assembled to assist with this potential project is saddened by this premature announcement. Hopefully, there will be an appropriate time for an official announcement for this new business, and there will be a press conference with the owners of Jordan Manufacturing, the team facilitating the project, and state officials. As part of an internal expansion project or retention project, certain incentives are offered and acccepted. This grant is one of those incentives. The team working hard for this community consists of Eastern Indiana Development District, Rush County Chamber of Commerce, IEDC, Indiana State Department of Ag, City officials, OCRA, and the Lt. Governors office. We hope to welcome this new business to Rush County in the near future.

Pamela C Leisure
Rush County Chamber of Commerce
Posting date 10/23/2009 1:41 PM
Posted by Pam

In response- The project is a retention/internal project. The owners of the bulding have been the owners for many years. Their tennant moved out and they began having discussions about what to do with the building. They are existing owners simply considering bringing a new line to their facility in Rushville. Since it is an existing building, it fell within the Chamber Guidelines. ECDC has been very supportive and has volunteered to help with the project from day one. The only reason I didnt mention them, was because they were already mentioned several times. There were a lot of folks who have worked on this that weren't mentioned and should have been. The Chamber, ECDC, City and County all wish to promote a "Team Environment". In fact, through most of the discussions, many of the above mentioned persons, along with regional and state officials were present. Mark- thanks for keeping me in line! (Mark is another volunteer who works many hours trying to improve our community- Thanks for all your hard work for the Farmers Market, it was a great success!)

The only reason I posted here was to let the public know that this was a premature announcement. With any project, there is an incentive offering stage. That is the stage where this grant had to be discussed and the resolution passed. I am sorry if there is confusion about the process.

My original post was placed after talking with the client, and at the client's prompting. I hope that most people in the community know that the Chamber (and I am sure the ECDC as well but I do not work for them so I will not speak for them) is working very hard to grow Rushville and Rush County. It saddens me greatly to see the negative comments on these posts. There are many people who work tremendous hours trying to make Rushville a better place. We have great organizations in Rush County, many of whom have primarily volunteer boards, and it is discouraging to see people called to the carpet like they often are in these comments.

To former member: I am very sorry to have lost you as a member. The Chamber of Commerce is always looking for volunteers to help guide us into becoming a better, stronger organization and would welcome your advice as a business owner. You can call the Chamber of Commerce at 765-932-2880 (since I am only part time, I also have my cell phone listed as a contact on the voice mail, if you would happen to call when I am not in the office)

On a final thought, potential clients interested in relocating a business or expanding a business often times search the internet forums and blogs to get a feel for the community. They often make contact with our existing businesses and industries to see how they have been treated. A community only gets one chance to make a great first impression. Sadly, communities have missed out on opportunities because of negative forums and blogs. Rush County already has many challenges when competing for New industries. ECDC needs many tools for enticing new industries to Rushville, like infrastructure, four lane divided highways, land, buildings... these are big items which will take a tremendous amount of time and effort to overcome. Small items like forums and blogs are easier to fix. Perception can easily make or break you.
Posting date 10/27/2009 6:47 AM
Posted by Pam Leisure
Monticello Article

‘We’re not leaving Monticello’
Jordan owner says expansion will not affect local operation.
By SCOTT ALLEN, sallen@thehj.com
Published: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:04 AM CDT

Jordan Manufacturing may expand its business beyond White County, but not at the cost of any of its Monticello operations.

“We’re not leaving Monticello,” said owner Dave Jordan. “Our business is good; our industry, for some unknown reason, we’re not as affected as other businesses have been.”

A report in the Rushville Republican announced that Jordan will open a new plant in the southern Indiana city. The newspaper reported the plant would bring 73 new jobs to an existing building. But Jordan said that is an uncertainty at this point.

“The process is not complete,” he said. “It is premature to say that we’re going with Rushville.”

Jordan explained that the expansion process has been ongoing for over 2 years, and is still going because his company is working with entities to clear the way.

“Last year with the economy being very uncertain, we got to a point and pulled our horns in on it,” he said. “However, we’ve continued to work on procedures and methods in order to make this expansion as successful as possible.

“We’ve still got a lot of work to do.”

Though Rushville is a possibility for the new site, other locations are in the running. The reasons, said Jordan, are both proximity to raw materials and incentives offered to locate a plant by the benefitting community.

White County Economic Development Director Connie Neininger explained that incentives offered to a company can vary.

In White County, the possibilities include tax increment financing and funding for infrastructure like water, sewer and roads.

“The most common is tax abatement,” she said. “Some communities have reserves such as funds set aside to provide additional incentives either for training, permitting or just to help with moving costs.”

She said that the Indiana Economic Development Corporation also offers incentives, but usually only to bring companies into Indiana or prevent them from leaving the state.

Jordan explained that the new plant, wherever it is located, will bring work back to the country that’s currently being done in China.

“Like any good business, we’ve always got to be looking at what we can do to enhance our business and be more valuable to our customers,” Jordan said.

Neininger said that though Jordan Manufacturing isn’t looking to locate its new facility in White County, its expansion will be a boon locally.

“Anytime a corporate office is growing, especially in today’s economy, it’s good for everyone,” she said. “Yes, we would love to have the new project here locally, and the city did offer tax abatement … but again a company has to look at what’s best for them.”

In May, the Monticello City Council approved tax abatement for Jordan Manufacturing with the purpose of a new manufacturing facility to make wooden market umbrellas. But that abatement is good for 10 years, and the possibility for continued expansion in Monticello is open.

“We will probably still keep expanding in Monticello,” Jordan said.

Neininger understood that other factors can make a company more attracted to other communities.

“If there’s an existing building and they won’t have to spend a lot to renovate, and … if it’s closer to raw material, anytime they’re looking at expanding, if their corporate office is here we will see that benefit,” she said.

But Jordan was clear that his Monticello facility will not suffer from the expansion.

“We’ve had the best summer here that we’ve had in our history,” he said. “We’ve had more people working in our factory than ever, and we’re looking to expand that.”

“The home office is still going to be here, we’re not cutting anything we’re doing here,” Jordan said.

Questions:

1. So should we congratulate the Mayor or slap him on the wrist?

2. Should a chamber director reprimand the Mayor and Council?

3. Can a chamber director be released by “The Administration” for insubordination?

4. Was the exclusion of the county and the ECDC intentional?

5. In White County the Economic Director comments and in Rush County the Chamber Director comments – why the difference?

6. Did Rush County cause a headache for Mr. Jordan?

7. After reading the compilation, does “73 New Jobs Coming to Town” seem misleading?

8. Does the general public or any of the “Team Environment” members know what internal expansion project or retention project means or how it is defined?

9. Why would the ECDC board members not have a clue regarding the internal expansion or retention project program definitions?

Arrgghh … walk de plank!

Well, it is official -- more pirates have walked the plank in two years under the Bostic-Goins administration than those who walked it under the prior eight years of the Bridges administration.  In addition to the Chris Lane dismissal, there should be another press release in the pipe line announcing the departure of one most loyal of campaign supporter who strayed too far from flock – he has been punished accordingly.  Some have said that if it had not been for this Bostic-Goins ally, the election wouldn’t have come to the result it did.

Hint for the local paper:  You might want to look in the same department where you might hear phrases like -- Gabby, Jamey, euthanize, pussy, doggy style, execution… (…and I am not talking about the police department).  

I am not sure if there is anyone who keeps records related to city and county politics, but if they did, I would be dumbfounded if anyone in the modern era has achieved employee results that the Bostic-Goins administration has.

1. So what has gone wrong with the perfect team?  It seems like they have started resorting to eating their own.

2. Do you think the Goins campaign has made contact with this individual to get him back on the same page?

3. Is it a record to have 2 of 5 department heads replaced in 2 years?

4. Does a threatening environment at work promote anything but fear?

5. Can the turnover rate always be blamed on the employees and never the employer?

6. If the rules that applied to Mr. Lane back in the day would he have to have fired himself? 

Going...going...gone!

I looked in the local paper to find the results of the whispered Board of Works meeting on Wednesday night, but I found nothing. That is the fine line you have to walk when you make a living chasing law enforcement and rescue personnel. Sometimes they respond to the story, but other times, they are the story. When they are the story, the media faces a catch-22 -- do you report it and run the risk of upsetting meal ticket, or do you just ignore it and play it off as rumor. As of this posting, nothing has hit the paper yet.

Well, the rumor that officer Chris Lane existed on the Rushville police force is verifiable. The fact that Mr. Lane is no longer an employee of the city is also confirmable. What they claimed he did is now up for debate. I will not attempt to delve into the details because the facts are debatable.

I would assume this decision of acceptable behavior is to be honored by all employees. I would assume that it will be vigorously enforced without preference or discrimination. I would assume this new standard be administered in a consistent manner. So much so, that I assume they will put there new moral standards in writing for all to see.

Does this open the door for the government to examine work phone records for all employees (whose phones are paid, or reimbursed by government, for by the government owned agency) and for their texting notes made public?

?????????’s

1. What will the courts find if this decision is tested?

2. Is this the Bostic-Goins-Cameron administration’s version of zero tolerance?

3. Is this a case where Chief Cameron made a questionable hire?

4. …Or is this a case where Chief Cameron acted swiftly and decisively to eliminate an officer he felt was detrimental to the force?

5. What if a city employee violates this but on another employer’s time?

6. Who all played a role in this eradication?

7. Who is on the board or works?

A new addition to the family

There is a new member of the family in Rush County.  In a recent survey on this site, it was felt that a third party could have an impact on a local election.  It looks like the results of that poll are going to put to the test sooner than later.

 
 
 

As the new party settles in and tries to get a foothold, those swearing allegiance to the traditional parties will watch with interest.

1. So who is Paul Morrell?

2. Where will the members of the new party come from?

3. With disillusion for the traditional parties, will this type announcement become more common?

4. Will this mean that local leaders will have to write three checks?

Let the purging begin

I know that last week I made a prediction that there was going to be disciplinary actions coming down the tracks regarding the police department. As usual, it was all written off as rumors because the local paper did not report on it. Well, it is time for me to verify that this train is getting ready come into the station.

The legal notifications are out and scheduled as follows - Disciplinary Hearing:
 
Name of Governing Body:    City of Rushville Board of Public Works & Safety
Time and Date of Meeting:  5:00 p.m. October 28, 2009
Place of Meeting:                Council Chambers 270 W 15th Street, Rushville, IN

This appears to be followed by a Special Meeting:

Name of Governing Body:     Board of Public Works & Safety
Time and Date of Meeting:   6:00 p.m. October 28, 2009
Place of Meeting:                 Council Chambers 270 W 15th Street, Rushville, IN

This special meeting is the hearing and verdict for the local officer.

On the 29th of October when the dust settles and the local paper still doesn’t cover this, ask yourself if the officer feels that the disciplinary action hearing really happened. I would bet the officer and his family will feel like it really happened.

I thought this type of “embarrassment” would not happen in a city run by the Bostic-Goins-Cameron administration.

As I am sure you can read between the lines that this most likely is a police and domestic issue mix. As I neither am sure the chief can vouch, this is not the first, nor will this the last police department employee will struggle through. We seem to be becoming the law enforcement controversy experts of the state.

So…..

1. What is the evidence for the disciplinary hearing?

2. Can you use this evidence in a disciplinary hearing?

3. Will the officer be fired?

4. Will all officers and for that matter all employees be held to the same standard?

5. How is the local department viewed in the law enforcement community?

6. Will we handle all such indiscretions unswervingly?

7. Will there be action against a support employee at the police heading toward the board of works too?

8. Why would he be fearful of his job?

9. Can I get a little background?

10. Do we still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

11. Have things really changed?

We could have licked this problem

I think with all the serious topics circulating, it is time for one slightly more abstract. I am a big pet lover (not in a biblical way or anything).

Two of the recent topics have dealt with serious issues that if we could have combined them, we might have been able to avert the tragedy.

The Fire Department had a need to buy some equipment, and the recently released animal shelter employee wanted to help animals and keep her job. I now introduce: Bark 10-4™ Campaign

From the Bark 10-4 website:

“Annually, an estimated half million pets are affected by fires in the United States and more than 40,000 pets die each year due to smoke inhalation. With the right equipment, police, fire and emergency medical service (EMS) rescuers can often save a pet's life. Losing a pet in a house fire can be a devastating experience for a family member. SurgiVet® Pet Oxygen Masks are effective with dogs, cats and other companion animals, but only if they are on hand at the scene of an emergency.

Smiths Medical, the US manufacturer of the SurgiVet® brand of animal health products, announced today that it has teamed up with Bark Buckle UP® to launch the “Bark 10-4™” campaign. During October, which is National Fire Safety Month, industry leaders and pet safety experts Bark Buckle UP®, and Pet Safety Lady™ Christina Selter are teaming up with Smiths Medical and fire departments nationwide to launch the “Bark 10-4™” campaign to raise awareness of the need for Pet Oxygen Masks.

Currently, most of the more than 30,000 fire departments and EMS offices nationwide have more than one truck, and funds to purchase Pet Oxygen Masks often fall short.

The “Bark 10-4™” Campaign was created with the goal of getting a Pet Oxygen Mask on board every fire truck in the country by encouraging the public to sponsor the purchase of Pet Oxygen Masks for their local fire departments. A $25 sponsorship ensures that one mask can be purchased for a fire department; a $65 sponsorship buys a mask set, which includes a small, medium and large mask.

Sponsorship can be completed at bark104.com or from a link at www.surgivet.com/pet-oxygen-masks/index.html The sponsor designates the specific fire department to receive the gift, which will be delivered with the shipping/handling costs paid by Smiths Medical.

“Vets have used oxygen masks designed especially for animals for years,” according to Regina McIntosh, Vice President of Marketing for Smiths Medical North America. “These masks have found their way into the hands of first responders primarily through word of mouth and the generosity of compassionate pet owners. This program will go a long way toward raising awareness about a product that can save a lot of pets’ lives.”

“The mask only works if it is on the truck,” states Jose M. Torres, Battalion Chief ‘A’ Platoon Santa Monica (California) Fire Department. “Together we can save pets’ lives.”

Presently in an animal rescue, fire fighters have to use a human mask on the animal being rescued. This program helps to put animal masks on all fire trucks. The masks even come in different sizes.

If the fire department would have focused on buying pet rescue masks, it might have distracted enough to have saved on a new fire truck. If the animal department employee would have focused on this effort, maybe that would have been an “effort to save” that was appreciated by the city fathers.

1. Would the local community support such a cause?

2. Would this type program be seen as “below” firefighting professionals?

3. Is this an example of doing it doggie that we can all legitimately get excited about?

4. Would this be where the term “dog is in heat” comes from?

5. Where is that dog living?

Hey Martha, the forum is back!

Well, it looks as though the general public will have the opportunity to share their thoughts on the local paper’s website again. The reason for the forums resurrection it not addressed in either of the Briefs.

As much as the forums were despised by those who became topics for conversation and by those “real” journalists, there appears to be a need. That need is -- they drive hits. So for all who thought these forums should be eradicated now find that the all mighty dollar prevailed. In the internet world, hits are gold.   

The paper has touted additional oversight when compared to the old forum. What that meant was never clearly explained. Maybe if they can find a journalist, they will ask and report on those outstanding, pertinent questions.

The publisher of the local paper is quoted in the print media as saying, “We’re confident visitors to our Web site will use the new forum for the constructive discussion of community issues and other topics of interest.” I guess the paper will define what “constructive discussion.” Do as I say, not as I do - Big Brother.

1. Do you think the timing of the removal of the other forums was coincidental?

2. Do you think a call was really made to shut the old forum down?

3. So is a forum with “additional oversight and moderation” the same as the comments?

4. Is the new oversight policed locally?

5. Does the other editor have to sign-off on comments, too?

6. Does the new format allow the Editor to “balance” public opinion?

7. If one blog site is bad, are two better?

8. Have you ever seen Topix?

9. Do we control events better when we control opinion?

Do moral mandates transmit administrations?

I have touched on the possibility of this article in the past, but it was in the context of the police department getting rid of the “bad apples” from the Bridges administration. It should be noted that these “bad apples” were subsequently hired by the prior Bostic administration. Well, it seems now we are having the uncomfortable duty of dealing with those officers attributable only to this administration.

If you listen to the whispers through the cornstalks, you will know there is obviously something happening that has not been reported in the front page of our local paper – therefore, it will probably be written off as small town rumor.

If this, in fact, is only rumor, you might want to do some research on your own and follow the clues left by the Board of Works. If things continue to go where they are headed, we might get to observe a Board of Works personnel hearing that might turn into a real lawsuit.

During a recent, rainy fall weekend, I decided to reminisce on a story that focused on Chief Cameron’s opinion that the police department under former Chief Fudge “lacked professionalism.” While searching through the online paper, I happened upon an article that has clearly established the dictum for acceptable behavior and morals expectations for this community and its departments. That article is, “Former chief’s voice concerns”, dated October 29, 2007. In this review, I will only speak to those items articulated by Ron Cameron, since after the article Bob Miller and his staunch views disappeared like a fart in the wind. Cameron’s need for position and power have lead him back to the glory days of police chief and the position of having to be measured by the yard stick he created.

Below are some of Mr. Cameron’s quotes and inferences when referring to the Rushville Police Department:

“If the police department is not good, then that’s bad for the community.”

“Evidently, the current mayor does not see that there’s a problem.”

He added that his concerns stem from a lack of professionalism demonstrated by, “not all, but a few members of the department.”

“It’s a shame that the RPD is coming under fire and it’s a sad day when many citizens have lost faith, trust and respect for the department”

“This hasn’t happened overnight, it’s been steadily going downhill for the past seven years.”

Cameron said in order to repair the damage done and to restore respect and faith in the RPD, Chief Tony Fudge and Mayor Bob Bridges must first recognize and admit there is a problem.

“The chief must be diligent un making sure officers conduct themselves properly.”

“A police chief must stand behind, beside and sometimes in front of his men. He must back them to the hilt when they are right, but he must be the first to call a foul when one occurs.”

“It’s not all members of the department creating these problems. There are good officers who want to serve and protect, but there are also those who are making it nearly impossible to do their jobs.”

Don’t you find that it is interesting that Chief Cameron had such staunch views on how the department should be run, until in fact, he was put into charge of the department?

At a later date, I might look into the side of the story conveyed by the fart in the wind because it is interesting in its own right.

Questions

1. Is there comfort in knowing those who abuse the system, versus shipping in people we don’t to abuse the system?

2. Does Cameron prove he was more qualified then Bridges and Fudge because the same thing that he complained about over 7 years was able to happen under his tenure of two years?

3. Will Cameron hold himself to the same level of accountability that he demanded of Bridges and Fudge?

4. When the deputy mayor takes office will he hold on to Cameron?

5. When Chief Cameron says “protect” was he referring to birth control?

6. So is this a complaint or rumor?

7. Can we address whether the Cameron Moral Mandate is transferable to other City Departments?

Are things really any different now that Cameron stole from Fudge the third most important role of his life?
 

Milroy EMS - Enough already

This topic has hung around for far too long, and for the record, everyone should know it is not by my choosing. This topic has played itself out. The decision has been made, and it is not going to change whether this magic meeting is tomorrow, the end of the year or next fall. Once the fox is in the hen house, it is impossible to undo the damage. The Milroy ATVFD, Milroy EMS and Anderson Township are waiting and wondering what they can do to influence this outcome.

So let’s recap this: The ATVFD wants the county to repose there Milroy EMS ambulance. The ATVFD would like to offer ambulance services if the ambulance is repossessed. The county is not sure it has jurisdiction to repossess the ambulance. At the end of the year, the current provider, who has now expanded their service area, is going to voluntarily relinquish a market.

So does delaying this decision change anything? Then why not just make it and have everyone settle into the new arrangement?

If I were to play The “Great Kreskin” here, I would say that this service area will be given directly to the RMH Ambulance Service. Or in best case scenario, it will be given to the volunteer community and that ATVFD will be granted a trial run at operating the ambulance service (under the watchful eye of RMH Ambulance Service). 

1. Who really is managing this decision?

2. Is Big Brother’s house in order?

3. Is there enough money in the in the county budget for another ambulance to stay housed in Milroy?

4. Will a permanent expansion into Anderson Township mean a new smorgasbord of EMT’s?

5. Will Milroy need a new “chase” vehicle?

6. Is the one on the south edge of town to be closer to Milroy?

In politics, just like in chess, pawns become expendable

In the 2008 city election, there were three people who were clearly identified with a need for change away from the Bridge’s administration. Those three faces were Brad Hatfield, Shawn Grocox and Jamie Glandon. I don’t want to go back through the details of the situation, but just a cursory overview. Brad was the Police Department employee that was tagged as the inside person who championed the need for a change, and thus, the new Bostic Administration. Brad even actively campaigned for the present Mayor and was portrayed as the poster child for the local department. Shawn Grocox was in the middle of his disciplinary action(s) and was portrayed as a victim of love. While his father was running as part of the Bostic ticket, he was a support, if nothing else, through default. His predicament was portrayed for the voters as a personal issue that was being too harshly spotlighted by the Bridge’s Administration. Jamie Glandon was an outspoken opponent of politics who seemed to position herself in situations where she had the most political leverage. She was also portrayed as a victim in the rumors that swirled around the animal shelter that finally came to a head with the Gabby soap opera.

All of these former city employees were carted out to the public as martyrs in war for change, and within 22 months of taking office, all have separated relationships with the City. The image of victims in a system in which they were being abused is no longer useful, and they now are all being portrayed in a much different light.

The political mind that thought of this tactic should be proud of themselves. They were able to identify a pawn, use the pawn and discard the pawn all within 22 months of the election.

Here they are:

1. Who was the mastermind behind the last city election Cameron, Goins, Malcolm or Smith?

2. Are they victims?

3. Do you feel sorry for any of these people?

4. Have things really changed?

5. Are there still investigations at the police department?

6. Who will be the next?

New "family member" raises some questions

After reading through the statistics, training and validation of having a full-time paid fire department we come to the real topic at hand. The City of Rushville bought a new 2009 100’ Ferrera mid-mount platform truck.

I find it interesting that in the worst financial climate since the depression, the City has made it largest single outlay of money since the purchase of the 1997 truck.

It almost appears that the purchase of the old truck, described as a 75-foot platform vehicle that was a 1997 chassis modified with a 1971 engine and transmission, was not a prudent one. I will not debate the justification of one vehicle over another or whether, nor will I banter about whether the fire department is busy, well-trained, or should be volunteer. What I will question is how can we make a purchase of this magnitude while teeter financially on so many other projects?

Although the article appears to highlight the day in the life of the fire department, it fails to mention the cost of the truck or the number of years our children will be asked to pay for her. This seems to be relevant information.
With this new-found money, the city might have considered allocating some those that still appear to be in need of finances. Some are as follows:

• If I understand correctly, every employee of the city this year should feel connected to this truck because it, and other spending, took the place of the employee’s pay raises. Equipment over your employees doesn’t seem like a sound decision since your employees are a cities most valuable resource.

• The 16th Street project - Did we just ask those landowners adjacent to that project to give their land away for free because the city could not afford to pay for the land?

• North Industrial Park - The infrastructure is still not complete. We could have farmed it this year and at least got some crops off of it. “Shovel Ready” could readily have become “Combine Ready”.

• State Road 3 project is getting ready to start, but the City did not have the resources to apply for a Transportation Enhancement Grant (story of Glenwood and 10 other projects applied for as noted in a story in the local paper). The Transportation Enhancement Grant program provides for streetscapes and greenways associated with and in conjunction with new highway construction projects. In the case of Rushville, it could have been used to create make aesthetic improvements to the new Main Street project.

I hope that when potential new clients drive through our town and past the project , that will be sitting incomplete they will wander by 2nd and Perkins; and if the middle bay door is open, they will get to view the one thing we did get completed (except for making the payments).

1. Has anyone seen a drunken sailor on this ship?

2. Was this a sound fiscal decision?

3. Do firefighters on the council have an influence?

4. What administration bought the 1997 truck that is looked down upon?

5. Are there any familiar names involved?

6. Since the employees lost out on a raise, do they take turns driving it home on Friday nights?

7. Can you buy a chance to ride in the new fire truck?

8. Does anyone else see where this is headed?

9. Did we get the stimulus grant that started the talk about a new fire truck?

10. Do we still qualify?