The Rushville Truth

Optimism?

As the author of these posts, I have had the pleasure and pain of watching the comments and emails that have come to this site.  The direction, intensity and candor of those who blog on this site has been interesting, to say the least.  Topics that I would not have thought would have been popular were, and some that I thought would be, were not – consequently, making the site very dynamic.

Rush County, like many communities, faces a dire financial environment.  Even though some have described the community as the “poster child” of negative potential, some of the readers still seem optimistic about our city.  One person who emailed the Truth might have stated it most concisely when quoting Maria Robinson: “Nobody can go back and start a new beginning, but anyone can start today and make a new ending.” 

It is evident that the community is not happy with some of the things that are currently happening or other events that have come to pass over the years.  Some seem to be political – some aren’t.  The reason I am writing this article is because the emails I am seeing are starting to indicate evidence of the citizen’s ability to adapt.  They seem to be developing a work-around to those flaws in the system.  Some even appear to be optimistic about potential developments.  The emails promote responsibility by leaders, cooperation between all, transparency in all arenas, camaraderie, and arrangement to ensure morals and ethics.

Whether it is the Commissioners, the Mayor, the RT, local papers or their columnists who tell you “this is just the way things are and it’s just the way we have always done them”, the community appears to be turning a deaf ear.  They may not like the system as it is, but they appear to be willing to work through it until they can make the desired changes. 

It appears that the community’s attitude is quite bright.  The emerging attitude does not seem to be rhetoric but more genuine and sincere.  There seems to be a desire for sensible steps for positive change. 
Doesn’t it say something for the community that has hope and a positive attitude?  If these people are willing to pursue a public platform and continue to tell the story, the optimistic outlook may seem ambitious, but realistic.

**********************************

1. As a result of less media presence in the community are the citizens on their own becoming more comfortable developing their opinion?

2. Are people developing an independent identity?

3. Do people feel more comfortable expressing their own opinions that were left only to “leaders” in the community?

4. Are we getting comfortable seeing our saintly leaders with their pants down?

The Long Ranger

We have heard of the push by the Obama administration to put more officers on the streets via a 1 billion dollar grants program. This program, called COPS, would pay the salary for an officer for 3 years and then the local government would begin to pay. Sounds good in theory and we have discussed some of this before, but what are the long-range implications? In a time of uncertainty with growth in this community and a dwindling tax base, would putting an officer on under this program add to the financial woes done the road? It seems this will be a moot point as the results of the funding are now coming to light.

The Attorney General is on record as saying that the police officers are “going to the communities with high crime, financial need and community policing activities.” I would argue that Rushville will fall way down the line in terms of the high crime list. We have crime but not to the degree of other city’s we would be competing with. In terms of financial need, not sure that would put Rushville in the running with cities like Indianapolis who has laid off 50. Point being we have been fortunate enough, to this point, that we have not had lay-offs. I do think that the program has more merit than many of the wasteful programs in Washington, but sometimes one size doesn’t fit all. I would like to think as a citizen of the United States that communities like Rushville wouldn’t be so greedy in this area that it may rob a more deserving city of a resource they could more effectively use. I think as a country if we could look more at doing what is best for the country and put personal gain second to that, we would all be better off.

Those annoying questions:

1. Do you think we could have disciplined ourselves enough to pay past the third year?

2. Could the program have been used for a K-9 officer?

3. Did the local effort really have a good leg to stand on?

4. Is this a program that we lost out on, but is probably a good thing in the end?

We are all on a Budget

I, along with the rest of the citizens of this fine county, am watching as the city and county prepare their 2010 budgets. There have been some cursory comments made in the paper about the city budget and even less about the county budget. I thought it has been interesting to watch many counties talk about drastic actions that they will have to take to make budget. I have yet to hear much whisper of eminent changes in the local budgets.
 
Some communities have gone as far as to enact the following:

• Closing police and fire stations
• Laying off employees
• Reducing department and services
• Charging fees for services provided for free in the past
• Putting a mortitorium on large ticket item spending
• Freezing wages and benefits
• Revising the benefit packages

To date, I have I have heard of minor deductions cuts but nothing to the degree of others in the state. I, like you, will wait and watch to see what happens in the end.

Questions:

1. Is there a shortfall as has been rumored in the 2009 county tax collection?

2. How would a 2009 shortfall effect the 2010 budget?

3. When others are drastically reducing workforces are we able to increase benefits?

4. Are we making sound business decisions or fulfilling political promises?

5. Or do we just have more revenues then were expected?

6. Do local leaders know more then the consultants and economists?

7. Who are the architects of the city and county budgets?

8. In this restricted economic time, did we really have a leader who reactively witnessed the county’s benefits package increase and as a result, suggest that the employees get a 2 1/2% raise to offset the increase in out-of-pocket costs the employees would be forced to experience?

9. Is that a double jeopardy?

10. Does it make sound fiscal sense?

 

Indiana Town looks to Bankruptcy

The small Indiana town of Georgetown located near the Ohio River looks like it may be going under, but not due to flooding. The Town Council approved an ordinance recently seeking bankruptcy protection due to outstanding debts that total $1.45 million, which includes monies, owed to an engineering firm and the nearby Town of New Albany due to a failed sewer plant project.

Municipal bankruptcies are not common but do happen. There have only been 33 filed in the last 5 years and none in Indiana. That is because Indiana law does not authorize municipal bankruptcies. Attorneys for Georgetown have countered that Home Rule allows for the filing. The state law specifically states that approval to file must come from the State and that Home Rule does not apply.

While the fight over the bankruptcy continues, Georgetown is looking for alternatives but is not optimistic. The Louisville Courier Journal quoted Georgetown Town Council President Billy Stewart as saying “There's no way for Georgetown to pay” its debts, he said. “We don't have it.”

Now for some questions:
1. Is bankruptcy a good way for a town to avoid paying its debts?
2. If Georgetown is successful, may this cause other towns and cities to consider bankruptcy as an alternative to raising taxes or cutting services?
3. Will we see a lot more of these actions as communities around Indiana deal with a recession and the circuit breaker?
4. Do communities need to work harder at balancing budgets before they consider extreme measures such as this?
5. What are the long term ramifications of a town declaring bankruptcy and would this affect the credit rating of other towns that that are looking to get bonds for building projects?

Could the answer "bee" pointing towards "yes" for neighboring community?

Connersville says “Come “Bee” a part of our Community”

So is it an American Jobs rally or an announcement? Word on the street is that the city of Connersville will find out this week if it landed the Carbon Motors plant and the announcement that there will be a community rally held Wednesday in the old Visteon plan. Connersville is nervously holding its breath. The Master of Ceremonies will be Economic Development Group Director, Bryan Coats. In addition to the local dignitaries, a few bigger names seem to stick out in the crowd, most notable Carbon Motor Executives, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, Sen. Richard Lugar, Sen. Evan Bayh and the E7 state of the art police car. So signs, like the ones plastered in the store windows, are all pointing to positive announcement for Connersville on Wednesday. There is definitely a “buzz” in the community. 

Some have played this off as part of the Hometown Competitiveness in Fayette County Campaign but clearly this something more. Volunteers have been cleaning up and preparing the Visteon plant. Some consider this a sign executives with Carbon Motors are interested in purchasing and turning the building into an assembly line. A crowd of 10,000 people are rumored to attend.

With double digit unemployment close to 16%, this town is desperate for new jobs. The company will reportedly create close to 1,300 jobs. This decision is very critical to outlook of Connersville future.

GOOD LUCK AND GOOD JOB CONNERSVILLE!

Doors open 10:30 am
Governor to speak 11:30 am

1. When will we get to host a rally?

2. Who would vie for the podium?

3. Are our leaders distracted?

4. What is the missing component?

5. Can our community find common ground to build such an effort on?

6. Do desperate economic times instigate change that could not have taken place in better times?

7. If Connersville is successful, will we benefit?

8. Will the benefit be greater than that made by Honda?

Government Transparency

This is seems to be a new catch word that is bantered about on the news channels lately. It was even part of the last presidential campaign. Our current president proposed more transparency of government. His administration has advocated same message. This is the time of year when the federal, state, city and county government bodies are finalizing their budgets for 2010.

I went to the city website to look at a copy of the 2009 budget and noticed it wasn’t there. One will find the 2006, 2007 and 2008 budgets but nothing newer. I did some research the websites of other cities and counties to find out what the consensus was concerning posting of this type of information. (You will find links at the bottom of this article for those websites along with the numbers for 2006-2008 Rushville budgets.) What I discovered was that it was hard to find budget numbers on most city websites. As a citizen, I would think that in this age of such computer technology that these would be more accessible to the public. While researching this topic another thing, I noticed was the quality of the websites of other cities. The city’s website needs to be addressed. I would challenge the council and county make these items more accessible to the public. Technology is a wonderful way for an ever-busy public to keep up with the actions its government is taking.

http://www.fishers.in.us/egov/apps/search/results.egov?fromIntranet=&as=1&as_cq=budget&as=Search&fDD=&lCS=&lDT=&as_b=1&as_t=1&as_d=1&as_k=1

http://www.cityofgreensburg.com/

http://www.cityofnewcastle.net/

http://franklin.in.egovapps.com/

So here we go:

1. Is the lack of budget information on-line intentional?

2. Why post it for the years prior to going in office but not after taking office?

3. Why would the county have posted NONE of theirs?

4. Is it true that accountability and transparency aren’t always compatible?

Is this what you call a "RUFF" day?

Ok.  So the general public seems to be seriously bantering around on the topic. I will ask a few serious questions that I am sure the paper will address in its next article - or - until the investigation is underway this site and those who comment have about worn this topic out.  So in closing out this topic, here are some serious and not so serious; I hope you see the humor. 

1. On the bright side the shooting of the dog hurts the ghost employment claims?
2. Would a investigation include interviewing the neighbors and eye witnesses?
3. Should the paper survey the last (2) police chiefs to ask how they would handle getting a dog in a car?
4. Why is shooting a dog in Greensburg a class “D” felony?
5. Will there be a fund set up for McLovin?
6. So quick freeze-a-dog is a good story---shooting a dog by the police chief is bad?
7. How many dogs did Tony Fudge execute?
8. Hello, hello has anyone heard of a story from Bob Miller commenting on his opinion of how he thinks the new chief is performing?
9. Is this why Ruff the Crime is nervous around the chief?
10. Has Ronnie been bike riding with Mr. Angle?
11. When they say make sure your dog gets his shots, is this what they mean?
12. So can I assume Ronnie was never a K-9 officer?
13. If you throw dog in the freezer will it come back to life?
14. What are the criteria to establish premeditation?
15. Is it just me or has anyone else notice the lack of comments from our elected leaders?

 

Ronnie's Dog-gone Defense

After this story sat out in the public for a few days, Police Chief Ron Cameron had a chance to defend his dog shooting incident. The incident appears to be one with very differing points of view of what actually happened that lead to the shooting. It appears to be another in the series of embarrassing incidents related to domesticate animals over the years.

Those sympathetic to the treatment of possible animal abuses in the past have gone so far as to march on the courthouse, appear at public meetings, and start charitable funds for the protection of such animals. This incident appears to be along the same lines as any possible abuse in the past. Many residents appear to be interested to see what the local reaction will be to the most current occurrence.

The story, as reported by the local paper, recounts the conversations with the dog’s owner. Then it delves into the justification of the shooting by Chief Cameron. What appears to be missing in the reporting of the full story seems to be the eyewitness accounts that were covered by WTHR Channel 13 news. The eyewitness accounts DO NOT corroborate the claims made by the Police Chief.

Some of the questions related specifically to the article are as follows:

The local paper reported “According to the Rushville woman, Rushville Chief of Police Ron Cameron responded to the call.” 

Who was this Rushville woman?

“Following the shooting, Animal Control took him to the Rushville Animal Shelter.”

When did the Police Chief leave the scene?

Was the dog dead when he left?

Where was Ms. Glandon during the duration of the incident?

“As of Friday afternoon, the dog had not been released to family members pending the outcome of the investigation into the shooting”

Who will investigate the shooting?

Could an internal investigation by a subordinate be unbiased?

Will it be through the prosecutor’s office?

“…trained to shoot twice”

Are officers at the modern academy really trained to shoot twice?

“I have to get rid of him anyway because I’m going on vacation”

Does that mean the owner is in some way implying that killing the dog was ok?

Now for the generic questions?
1. Shouldn’t all this be verifiable by recordings made as a result of normal police procedure?
2. Is this considered a police action shooting?
3. Is the Chief qualified for the firing of fire arms?
4. Would this qualify as a situation in need of an independent investigator?
5. Would the shell casing shown at the scene be part of the investigation that should have been taped off with crime scene tape?
6. Where are the voices of those vocal in the past?
7. Why would Channel 13 run a story before the local paper?
8. Is there any irony in the fact that the dog was named “McLovin?” 
Since the last story created a series of articles I am sure this one will also. This will give everyone time to continue to gather facts and ask additional question. The next series of comments and questions may be more playful and fun.

Police Action Shooting in Rushville

At the risk of being labeled as attacking the Police Chief, I report the following. This story will be serious in nature. Those that follow might not be of the same journalistic altitude.

Chief Ron Cameron was involved in a police action shooting of a dog on Tuesday that left a family pet dead. Chief Cameron stated that he felt threatened by the dog, a two year old Lab mix named McLovin, while he was trying to apprehend the K9.

According to a report on WTHR, the dog, owned by Trudy Smith, was out of its yard and running the neighborhood. Animal Control reportedly told Chief Cameron that the only person able to corral the dog was the owner who was on her way to the scene. Chief Cameron stated that he felt a neighboring resident was threatened so he exited his vehicle. The neighbor went back in his house and that is when Chief Cameron said the dog turned to attack him and he felt the dog would bite him so he shot him.

According to the WTHR report, that is not the story the neighbors who witnessed the shooting tell. Rex and Mary Harpring stated they were on their porch and observed the whole incident. They say that at no time was the dog a threat to anyone and that he was actually playing with another dog as Chief Cameron attempted to place McLovin in his patrol car. Ms. Harpring was quoted by WTHR as saying, "The dog was nowhere near him to attack him. There's no way that dog tried to attack him. He knows that and I know that." Both Trudy Smith, McLovin’s owner, and the Harprings have filed complaints with the City. Ms. Harpring was quoted as saying, "He's the chief of police. I'm just a nobody.”

In the past, stories of this nature have drawn much attention in the community. The most recent incident even involved consideration of charges being filed against the shooter. The site will watch the treatment of the police chief like those who read this site.

I will post more on this story as information becomes available in the state or local media. In the mean time, here is a link to the WTHR story and video that was broadcast last night.

http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=10734848

No questions. I am playing real journalist.

E.M.C.ee you later!

I am not sure that these two topics are related in any way, but I thought it was ironic. I was looking at the story in the paper on June 27th, 2009 recounting the Utility Board meeting. It was reported in the prior referencing the meeting that during an executive session June 16th, the board had decided to terminate the contract of EMC effective July 31, 2009. That action was rescinded, and the board voted to not renew the contract when it ends in December. Economic savings were the basic reason for the change.

This topic has been a point of debate since the original contract was signed August of 2000. The debate was always lively as to whether the management services provided by EMC were in the best interest of the city.

The story indicates that EMC and the Rushville City Council would be notified and that the board will advertise for the superintendents’ position. And now for the topper---current superintendent Les Day will be allowed to apply for the position.

In a vote of confidence for the current superintendent, the current employees wanted to make sure they had an opportunity to voice their support for the current superintendent Les Day.

In an ironic and probably unrelated matter, if you log onto cities into the city of Rushville’s website, you are greeted with the boxed directions titled, “Boil Water Advisory Instructions-Click here for instructions for Boil Water Advisories.” I hope that these are not telling signs of what is to come.
 
Questions to ponder:

1. How much do you want to bet that the revision of the date of termination corresponds to potential employees becoming contractually available?
2. Is there a non-compete clause?
3. Does this seem kind of cozy?
4. Does it ever look good to potential clients to be greeted with instructions for a Boil Water Advisory?
5. Will this be in the best interest of the city in the long run?
6. What are the fines for a violation at the water treatment facility?
7. Is it me or does this seems to be Buckled up like a Smith and Wesson oil? Sorry -- lost my train of thought!

Is this a 'healthy' conversation?

I, like the rest of America, got a chance to look at the much anticipated health-care reform platform that has been offered by the President Obama. The proposal is in the form of a 700 page bill presented to the Washington law makers.
The primary impetus for the program has been claimed to be to slow the disastrous rise in health-care spending. Additionally it calms to be make insurance available to citizens in that portion of the country who are presently uninsured.

In an effort to educate myself on this topic, I have watched numerous programs and read countless articles. At the end of the day, this is a very complicated issue to get your arms around. This is confused by the fact that the differing news sources have their own agendas.

As you read through the various articles you will find the following program topics debated:

1. Will there be heavily subsidized premiums?
2. Will tax increases bear mainly on the middle class?
3. Will this impose rich standard packages, with low deductibles?
4. Will there be burdensome regulations?
5. Can the private providers compete against government back plans?
6. Can the government provide such a program without adding to the national deficit?
7. How soon can it be implemented if such a health –care plan has not been included in the 2010 budget?
8. What are community ratings?
9. What is a state “exchange”?
10. Will demand for services as a result of the influx users cause a deterioration services.
11. Will the costs outweigh the intended benefit?

Those are the national questions, but are there local questions?

With many local providers dropping their services to Medicare patients, could a government promoted be viewed in the same light and thus limiting working with those providers? I think it would be beneficial to have local perspective. The opinion of those in the health care industry could help people determine whether they should support such a program. As always, it is important to know if this program is good for the country, but it is in some ways more important to know how it will affect us locally.

Some of the questions I would love to investigate might be as follows:

1. How will such a program affect the local physicians and how they are reimbursed?
2. Will a physician or health provider be able distinguish between providing services to those with private insurance and public insurance?
3. How will this affect local insurance agents that provide private insurance policies?
4. Is such a program viewed as a move in the positive direction by the regional hospitals?
5. Can a government program sponsor a local little league team?
6. How will it affect patient transportation policies?
7. Will there be health care lines locally?

Membership has its privileges

As I was admiring the newly painted curbs and parking stripes downtown, something else new caught my eye. It seems City Hall has sprouted new parking signs. Obviously, parking must be a problem there since the mayor has installed signs designating parking spots. Closest to City Hall is a space reserved for his honor, next to that is a space for the Clerk Treasurer and then a couple of generically labeled spots for employees.

Now, I have been down to City Hall to do business under several administrations, and I have never seen an issue where parking was so bad you had to walk more than a few feet. But for some reason, our mayor has decided he needs to make sure no one parks in his space. When was the last time parking was an authentic issue?

I am sure the cost of the signs was minimal; it is not the issue alone that makes me tilt my head. It just seems you have small hierarchical moves: Cameron Memorial Drive with new canopy at the police station; parking spots for specific people; they just seem like position markers and extravagances we could have done without. My biggest problem is not the cost, but the image it portrays. All of a sudden the Mayor has to mark his territory like a dog by marking his own official parking space. I know this is not a larger-than-life issue, but it does seem to unveil a paradox.

On one hand you have a person who ran as the “common man” but since being in office, he has done much to differentiate himself from the common man. Maybe the word is “elitist”; this just seems to be an odd attitude that this “Mayor of the People” now seems to recently be showing. And while it may just be perception that there is something wrong here, in this town, perception is reality.

Now for some questions:

1. Was it this Mayor or the next who ordered the signs erected?

2. Should we have two mayor parking signs?

3. Does calling out the Mayors vehicle to anyone driving by present a security risk to His Honor? I mean if RPD tires can be slashed in the parking lot at RPD, what is to keep someone from messing with the Mayor’s vehicle?

4. Should every city employee get a special parking space in town?

5. Should there be a special parking place for the fire truck during Council Meetings?

6. With the passing of Michael Jackson and our current mayoral irony---should you hum “Ebony and Ivory” as you mull over your blog comments?

Now we know how the Native American Indians felt

At the recent Rush County School Board Meeting, Mayors Bostic and Goins and Councilman Shelton presented a request asking for land. Unlike what happened with the Native American Indians, our Mayors were not offering beads or even its cash equivalent; they were asking for the land for free. It appears that in order to make the 16th Street project happen, the City needs to obtain land from many property owners, including 1.3 acres from the Rush County Schools. The Mayors claimed that the project cannot happen without the donations. Typically in these road widening projects, the municipality buys the land at fair market values, as determined by appraisals.

 

Well, since the City does not appear to have the money, they are asking for handouts. Not only will this require the School Board to donate land, but several private property owners, including LOMA Apartments, would have to donate as well. This should be interesting to see if the Mayors tugging at the civic pride of these property owners will overcome their sense of fair compensation for the properties.

Now for some questions and how:

1. What happens if some property owners donate land and others hold out for payment?

2. Was this done at the advice of the two guys from Shelbyville, or the one from Greensburg?

3. Will there be a quid pro quo with the School District, and what will the City have to give them?

4. If they are so broke they can’t afford right-of-ways, would have it been a good idea to have held off buying new police cars and other frivolous purchases?

5. Can the realtors convince the land owners that the future value of the remaining property will make up for what was given away?

6. Was this part of the APC director’s presentation to the commissioners?

7. If we cannot afford this project, will it be forced to wait until we can?

Hey! Want some weed?

The City of Rushville apparently has unveiled its answer to the yearly weed problem. As reported in the paper, City Council approved a flat fee of $300 for every time the city is forced to clean-up, mow, and treat for weeds on local private properties.

The new $300 fee is an increase, from what the paper reported; in the past had been a $117.75 fee.

The weed issue is not a new one, and there have been numerous possible solutions thrown at it over the years. With the foreclosure climate, the problem has had to have become more daunting. The banks and mortgage companies are not known for their impeccable care of their foreclosed properties.

Do I like an increase in fees? No, but do I hope that the new fee gets the desired response? Yes. Good luck, Chuck, and don’t forget to wear a hat while mowing.

So here we go – hold on:

1. Will the $182.25 be enough of a hit to the wallet to make a difference?

2. Will the new fee offset the labor and equipment required to control the problem?

3. Will this program be administered to the private property owners as swiftly as to an absentee mortgage company?

4. What are the requirements that qualify a yard as potential clean-up?

5. To those who are forced to participate in this program, is this considered a tax increase or an increased user fee?

6. How many inches are too much?

Sometimes the marketing plan doesn't work

As with any endeavor there are days that couldn’t get better, there are days that challenge you endurance and character. I would say that holds true for those who have formulated the media concept that the common man will have a voice in local issues.

I formulated a poll not long ago, not for an end-gain, but just a question. At the conclusion of this I found the results to be more intriguing than most.

For the record the polls on this site cannot and will not be manipulated by the site. A point of evidence would be the poll that is presently receiving votes. If I wanted to slant a poll, I would push up the vote for the “Online blog site”. The numbers are truly what they are. The polling service only allows only one vote per computer so the results are as accurate as any internet poll can be.

The poll was as follows:

“Do you think that local citizens are encouraged to freely speak their mind without fear of repercussion?”

Results:

71.4% No
28.6% Yes

Thanks for those who emailed this correction; results are now corrected--my apologies. -RT

These are disturbing results.

That is how this community feels without morphing the numbers. It appears that those in charge can introduce all the public relations programs and press releases they want telling how inclusive they are, but in the end the general public doesn’t believe they are being encourage become an active participant in the system.

I look around this town and at those involved and those sitting on the sidelines and scratch my head. How did so much potential get mothballed? Maybe that head scratching can led to polling questions that will shed the light on what is happening and why. 

1. Is this community just disenfranchised?
2. Are they anarchist?
3. Are they the wrong party?
4. Did drink the Kool Aid?
5. Too progressive?
6. Are the only ones that care, the ones that make a living off of us?

Should we take the officers for granted?

I know…The Rushville Truth hates it…it hates everything. On this topic, I think that I am for getting more police officers. If for no other reason than the fact that before Ron took the position as Police Chief, he didn’t think they needed more officers. Now, the power the situation has changed. I have reviewed the paper’s headlines, and there seemed to have been a fair share of drug arrests under the past administration.  But now that Ron wants the new officers, the drug-related problems seem to have become more of an issue that is now being labeled a “serious drug problem.”

So if the federal stimulus money will cover the city for the duration of the new officer’s employment, then it makes for an easier program to support. From the reports I have seen, this is not the case.  After year 3 of employment, the city will be on the hook for the remainder of the officer’s 4-year mandatory employment as the officer is required to be employed 4 years. After the 4^th and final year of the contract, the officers are intended to remain on the force. The city would have a tough time trying to fire officers that may have done nothing wrong. The ability to reassigning these officers is limited by the federal government with full employee benefit repayment as a penalty.

As has been proposed by the Police Department, the city would have to save money each year to be able to assure that they could afford the officer for the 4^th and final year of required employment. With the city in such financial straits, I find it hard to believe that it would be able to set aside money during the first three years of the officer’s employment. So, will we really be able to put aside money when we are facing shortfalls? This is a topic that we might want to look at beyond this term when it comes to burdening the city with long-reaching employment debts.

This appears to be one those programs that sounds good in the short-term but struggles to cut the mustard for the long range future of the city.

Those young, unbridled officers that were chastised by the future chief during the election are now the officers that are being marched into public meetings as front men to lobby the program. Seems that even in Rushville, times do change.

Another item that that is seeing the light of day are other stimulus plan incentives that are going to focus of fire department employees. If we know anything from the past, we know that if the police get more employees, it will be tough to turn down the fire department for additional employees, too.

Questions:

1. Don’t you think if the chief would refrain from purchasing new cars if the citizens would be convinced that they’d someday be able to afford the new officers?

2. Chief -- did you know even the new cars need gas put in them to run?

3. How long does it take to push a car from 11^th street to a gas station? (The fun you hear on the scanner…)

4. Have we found out if we can use these stimulus officers to replace retiring officers?

5. Do officers get comp. time to attend council meetings to lobby for the new officers?

Dropped, but not forgotten...

“9:40 p.m.: Daniel Kenneth Hoover, 49, of Rushville, was arrested on an unspecified warrant. A $10,000 bond was listed.”

This was the only information most Rushvill-ians had that a City Department Head had been arrested for operating a Motor Vehicle with a controlled substance in the body.

Unfortunately, that is more information than the average citizen will know about how the case ended. It seems that the former department head had all charges dropped and was named a working foreman. But the local paper did not carry anything at the end, which is similar to the fact that they did not carry any details of his arrest.

I think it is only fair that since this blog site mentioned this story in its early stages, it should also mention it at its conclusion. 

It would seem to me if I were the City, I would want the paper to carry news that an employee had charges dropped, and if I were Mr. Hoover, I would want the same to clear my name. Speaking of the City, does it seem fair that Mr. Hoover was a Department Head before his arrest, but is now just a working foreman?

And now for some more questions:

1. If news happens and the local media doesn’t cover it, did it really happen?

2. Is Mr. Hoover returned to his original pay, or is he being unfairly punished for being arrested?

3. Seems like he was exonerated, shouldn’t he be returned to his previous position?

 

 

RPD keeping it local ... NOT!

If you live in Rush County, it's because you love the town, grew up here, wanted to raise your children here, married a local, etc. With the economic crisis at-hand, it's probably tempting to pack up and leave town to find a job somewhere…ANYWHERE…if of course, you have the means. There certainly aren't too many positions to be had as of right now in your own neighborhood, which is why the next topic here really irritates me.

Here we are in the midst of a recession ... people are losing their jobs left and right, businesses are closing, jobs are hard to come by. One local entity is hiring people ... but it seems that the jobs keep going to people with no vested interest in the community.
 
I'm not saying that the RPD has to give jobs to local people only, or that Rushville is an exclusive fraternity and you can only get in if you have proof of lineage, so don't misunderstand me. But why keep hiring people from out of town that may not ever want to live here or want to be here for the long haul? The city's newest hire was from Cambridge City, I think. Past hires in recent months hailed from Greensburg and Brookville. Is no one devoted to our quaint little city good enough for this department? Or is it because they don't have an opinion on matters of the city? I know the local officers must have had ability because they seem to be moving up the ranks.
 
Chief Ron Cameron recently requested permission from the city council to pursue a grant that could ultimately add two additional officers. The grant, which falls under the 2009 Federal Stimulus Program, would pay all new police officers' salaries and benefits for a period of 36 months.
 
Chief Cameron said that he faces the retirement of three officers in the next three years, and if the department gets the grant, the two additional officers would be in place to move into the vacancies once grant funding expires. There are also currently scheduling issues for a period of several months when an officer leaves the force and when new officers are interviewed, hired, trained and can go out on patrol.
 
I sincerely applaud the department for looking into grants, rather than demanding that the city pay up front for these new officers. Federal money can be used instead of local taxpayer money to train and wean these men onto the streets of Rush County. But again, will they be out-of-towners? Is there no one competent locally to protect and serve that would stay around longer?
 
Maybe someone in the department can enlighten us. Maybe no one locally wants to be a police officer, but I really find that hard to believe. I know several people personally that would make fine candidates and have applied for the position to no avail.
 
Questions:
1. What gives?
2. Where's the grant money to pay those dedicated to the city for many years the wage that they deserve?
3. When's the city going to hire a female police officer?
4. Is the above allowed anymore?
5. What happened to shop local?

 

Freedom of speech? Not so much anymore…

April 15th is a day that has come to symbolize legislative thievery. If you watched the tea party rallies on television (certain channels), you could visually see the outrage of the American people with the past two administrations. Those administrations being the Bush and Obama along with the Congress’s presiding during those leaders tenure. I watched with an unbiased eye as I believe this isn’t a Democrat or Republican issue for most people. I sincerely think people are tired of the bail outs and the runaway spending going on in government.

The part of this that I saw as sad was the more liberal media dismissing these demonstrators as being “wacknuts” or “right wing zealots.” MSNBC was reporting these and were sponsored by FOX news. It seems hypocritical that demonstrations over gay rights, abortion rights or anti war protests are hailed by these people as democracy in action. People are exercising there first amendment rights. People were protesting tax increases, spending and conservative principles they vilify. In some cases, it was labeled as “hate speech.” I am pretty sure that one of the founding principles of this country was freedom of speech. I believe this is why we are where we are with our government. Not enough people take the time to make a stand and take control of “their” government.

Let’s bring that topic home to Rushville and see how it translates to our city, shall we? We have our current mayor who has gaveled down citizens on two (2) occasions and has gone to much effort to change public meeting times as to, in my opinion, curtail any dissension of his decisions. I am sure this would be denied, but be sure to feel free to review the topics discussed at the coincidental meetings. Those meetings were usually those with subjects regarding hiring and firings – coincidence? Not so much.

You have the attacks and threats to this site – usually by those individuals portraying community leaders. They have been chronicled several times, but one must ask why so much back lash? There are some in this city who want the events that go on behind the scenes to stay there. This deprives the citizenry of their right of free speech when tax dollars are involved. Folks, we need to take our government back. This may come as a news flash to some, but we have lobbyist amongst us who consistently leverage the local elected officials. The may not want to be labeled as such, but their actions are no different than those registered lobbyist in Washington D.C., and we rail against those in Washington as greedy, profiteering, and self-serving. What really is the difference between these two?

Take a second and think this how this might happen at the local level. You might just see your neighbor in a different light.

I think it is only fair that I make note that the majority of leaders are good stewards to the community, but if you watch the ones who will go to any means to get the outcome they want, there is usually a reason for that, and most of the time it is not good. Continue to be vigilant and dare to make an honest difference in your community.

A government for the people, by the people...
Term Limits!!!

1. Has our government been hi-jacked locally?

2. Is it a violation of the public trust to politically install leaders to elected positions?

3. Do you think Mike Grocox knew how close he was to becoming Mayor?

4. Didn’t the mayor say his door would always be open to the public? Wouldn’t it help if he was there?

 

Are rates taxes?

“I will not raise taxes.”

Does anyone remember that statement in the last mayoral election? The Rushville City Utilities Board met last week to accept a preliminary engineering report on improvements needed to the wastewater treatment infrastructure. This in and of itself doesn’t seem out of the ordinary. This is the sort of thing utility boards do. Here is the kick to the gut. To address the “needs” to the infrastructure, your water/wastewater bills will be going up between 12-15 percent. This would be one of those great timing things. The economy is in a very suspect condition, the federal government just hit smokers with a huge new tax on cigarettes, the government, specifically the state, is discussing a plan to raise taxes on alcohol, we are pursuing a library that I would assume will require a tax increase of some sort, we have new schools we have to pay for and now we get an increase to our water bill. I see that one of the issues is the lift station at Intat. Should this repair be on the citizen’s dime, or should this be done with TIF money? Could TIF in this area be on the decline with the current situation with INTAT? I find it difficult to bear the weight of more taxes when the city seems to be on a spending junket. We have money for new police cars, new street department equipment, new parks department equipment, new office furniture at city hall and city council chambers, new fire department living quarters etc… etc...

If you have kept up on the projections for the city budget, you will recall that it is due to have a precipitous decline in funds over the next few years. With all that, is this really the best time for this? Oh, and back to the “no taxes” pledge. That is something that we, as citizens, should remember in the future!

1. Hey what about stimulus money?

2. How is the city EDIT money allocated?

3. Doesn’t this appear to be clearly an industrial improvement that the residents must now bear?

4. Is this considered a broken promise?

5. Does sh%$^* really run downhill?