Subscribe via email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Listen Live

Listen Live
WHUM LISTEN LIVE Donate to WHUM to keep the variety going! WHUM 98.5/98.3 does not endorse or in anyway show its support for the content of this blog. Rather I endorse and support WHUM!

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Ambulance Services

Sorry not much has been written of late. But this is an issue that definitely warrants some writing to find out exactly what is going on.

Monday July 2nd at 6PM, there will be a City Council meeting to conduct business unrelated to the ambulance issue, but the agenda (found here) lists ambulance services as a discussion item.

So as a primer for the meeting, allow me to deliver what information I know about the current ambulance set up.

Currently, ambulance service is performed via contract with the Columbus Regional Hospital. The City and County came together a good while back and made the agreement to contract with CRH instead of hosting the ambulance service as a part of City and County operations. This contract currently costs City taxpayers about $700,000. Add in the County subsidy (don't forget city dwellers pay County taxes too!) and taxpayers County wide are paying almost $1 million.

This week, the Board of Public Works collected bids from CRH, Seals, TransCare, Rural Metro, and the Columbus Fire Department.

Here are the price tags associated with each service (City-County plan numbers).

  • CRH: $640,000 for the first year/ $300,000 for the second
  • Seals: $175,000 for the first year
  • TransCare: $0.00
  • Rural Metro: $0.00
  • Columbus Fire Department: $274,000 for the first year/ $77,178 for the second

Notice some interesting things from these numbers. CRH currently does the same service for almost $1 million. So why are they now able to deliver the service for $640,000 and $300,000 for the second? Could it be that for the first time they have to compete with other ambulance services in a public bid?

Why can the other companies do these services for a fraction of the cost if not for free? Well some things have to do with start up costs (especially with the Fire Department) but other reason are that TransCare already has 4 ambulances here for nursing home transport services. They say they will station 4 more ambulances and use the current 4 as back up giving the whole county 8 ambulances to use.

Currently, the CRH has 4 ambulances. 3 for the City and 1 specifically for the County. These are Advance Life Support units. This same level of service is what is being bid on.


So there is no change in service (excepting where there is expansion as is the case with TransCare) with any of these bids. Why is CRH so expensive? They are the hospital. Surely ambulance service would be a mere extension of their operations.

Another point to make is the confusion that Rodney Ferrenburg, Fire Chief of Columbus Township and Vice-President of the Bartholomew County Fire Chief's Association, and Roger Johnson, the President of the BCFCA created in the Republic with their statements.

Ferrenburg and Johnson are urging the City to stick with CRH. The reason they give is because they have the notion that it is the City's plan to place the ambulances in the Fire Stations. They say that if that were to happen, then township and county citizens would suffer a huge time delay in waiting for ambulances.

There are a couple problems with their statements. First is that no one in the City is talking about doing that.

The second problem is that CRH already wants to do that to save money.

Yes, folks. The top two ranking members of the Fire Chief's Association wants to have CRH for the ambulance service, yet CRH wants to do the very thing the two Fire Chiefs are warning about. How does that make sense?

Now, let's understand why Rodney Ferrenburg might want to have CRH with the contract.

Currently, CRH rents space for one of their ambulances in the Columbus Township Fire station. Special interest? You bet!

Monday is another meeting at the City Council with discussion at the end about ambulance services. We will update this site more to report more information about the services, the inner political workings of what is going on, and why some politicians are fighting the open bid process (which is an example of unprecedented transperancy) by Mayor Kristen Brown and the Board of Public Works and Safety.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Hankins Irresponsible, Short-sighted

In what Aaron Hankins called "immoral" and "hoarding" the City Council voted to take a portion of the remaining budget from last year and put it into the City's Rainy Day Fund, its emergency fund. This makes the emergency fund about 7% of the City's budget, a very small amount for a fund.

Hankins believes that there should be no emergency fund and called for a tax to be collected whenever the City has an emergency.

You read that right. If an emergency ever came up or an instance where we need more money in an area due to unforeseen events, Aaron Hankibs would rather put a tax on you the people than see our elected officials responsibly laying aside money for that rainy day.

Instead of making the purely emotioal argument that Hankins wants to raise taxes, lets look at the economic repurcussions such a policy would have.

First is that taxes are not simply passed in a heartbeat. Taxes require meetings that are public. So we are looking at an emergency that it would take the City a month to levey a tax. Then it takes time to get the money. By the time the City raises money to pay to act upon an emergency, costs may have gone up, fees stacked, and the situation could be made worse.

Secondly, people do not want more taxes. Thosr meetings are public, it will receive public notice on the front page of the paper and people will attend the meeting telling Aaron Hankins he better not raise a tax. Funny that Aaron Hankins runs his campaigns on less taxes, but governs with the mentality of taxation.

Thirdly is the economic effects. Companies will not want to move to a city whose tax system is very confusing and unpredictable. Companies want to see stable governments who properly plan their finances. Aaron's propostion is flatly irresponsible.

Fourth is that it could affect credit ratings. If an emergency kept us from paying off a debt on time or making payments late, it could affect our credit rating which could raise the cost of borrowing money. But then yet, Hankins probably does not believe in borrowing money to begin with.

As a citizen said quite well, his family has an emergency fund. When something comes up requiring a large amount of money, he knows he has it available to take care of it right then.

A responsible family tries to save money for emergencies and so do responsible governments.

What would be immoral is taxing a community for the irresponsibility of the government. It is interesting to note, however, that Hankins kept referring to the City government and the Council he sits on as THEY. Aaron! YOU ARE THEY!

You are the elected official. You have to act responsibly. The platitudes you keep preaching are for the general government. We live in the sovereign State of Indiana in the City of Columbus. The government that has the most right and even duty to set aside money from the people is the government closest to the people. Local government. You. No more THEY. It's you.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Obama Supports Gay Marriage.... Surprise?

So everyone is getting heated over Obama's recent statement about how he supports homosexual's rights to be married (actually, he stopped at that word and remarked how prefers to use civil union since marriage is a religious matter, not a legal matter).

First, let's throw what the President sent to everyone on the Democratic Party email list up here so we know the context of this post.

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:

I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I hope you'll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:

I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn't dawn on them that their friends' parents should be treated differently.

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

If you agree, you can stand up with me here.

Thank you,

Barack


So let's look at this from a perspective of effect. What has the President done? Well, when I first read this, I immediately thought "Oh, you take the exact policy stance many Republicans do..... let the states decide." But what does that mean the President will do? Nothing. He is in the federal government and therefore, by his own statement, will do nothing about it except cheer on the sidelines if a state allows gay marriage.

What has the president done? Nothing.

Secondly, he specifically says he "respects the bliefs of others, and the right religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines." For all the evangelical activists out there, you don't have to worry about government cramming gay marriage into the churches. The President does not support that.

Thirdly, he says that he says that all people should be equal under the law. An in this, he is true.

Any Constitution loving, gun toting conservative should be pleased to recognize the rights of people who hold different social values to be joined together under the law (again, take God or religion out of it because we are not talking about the joining of souls, here).

The sanctity of marriage is not stained, at least by the entrance of gay marriage, just by the poor implementation of the institution by heterosexuals (divorce rate, etc).

So, once again, Obama has done nothing, he has said nothing any of us should be surprised about, and he actually admitted supporting the current way things are decided, by the states. The hype can now die, please.

So why did Obama say this? Probably to take our mind off of what he is doing with his other hand. He's a trickster and has something coming up he wants us not to notice.

Now that the can of worms is opened, I believe that Marriage is between a man, a woman, and their god. Not the State of Indiana. One should not need a certificate from the State of Indiana to get married. One need only to have a consenting spouse and the blessing of their god. So I propose getting government out of the marriage business and allow people to create "domestic incorporations" with each other for legal purposes. Then the problem, at least legally, with gay marriage is done away with, straight people can still say they are married with the confidence that they really are, and gay people can get married if their church allows them to. Both can be incorporated under the law if they so choose.

Once again, I am a Christian, I believe in marriage between one man and one woman, and I am a Conservative. I don't believe my legal look on this situation compromises any of those items.

Tuesday, Revisited

Senate Race

So we all know, by now that Dick Lugar will be retired from the Senate this next year, thanks to the good people of Indiana. However, many talking heads and activists on the left are claiming an early victory with the ousting of Lugar. Frankly, I am confused as to why they are cheering what was an obvious sign of their candidate, Joe Donnelly's, demise in November.

Let's understand a few things. Lugar was from an older generation of politician who would work across aisles in order to get his bills passed. In theory, that is really how it works and should work. Each side compromises and gets certain things done; however, Lugar, as the people saw it, mortgaged away freedoms in the midst of compromising with the liberals. He, himself, became a liberal by virtue of his "bipartisanship" which only served the Democrats' ends.

The people were ready for a change. A BIG change. No more START Treaties which compromise our national security so our senator can get other bills passed. No more gun control encroachment bills voted Yea to by our Senator. No more liberal activist justice nominees being voted into our Supreme court just so bipartisanship can be maintained. Lugar lost the true meaning of compromise and bipartisanship a while back.

It also helps to win an election when your opponent, Lugar, lives in Virginia and is considered Virginia's 3rd Senator by LIBERAL organizations in Virginia. People believed Lugar was way out of touch with Hoosiers mostly because...... he's not a Hoosier anymore.

So why are the leftists rejoicing? Because they think people want bipartisanship and they want a more liberal senate.

Now, I might have bought into that notion..... had Lugar lost by a 5% or less margin. But Lugar lost by 20% points. That's HUGE! Republicans did not just come out to vote, the RALLIED to vote in Mourdock. The energy that Hoosiers for a Conservative Senate and the Tea Party groups around the state have brought to the Republican party is very refreshing and is exciting. The Democrats hardly came out to vote in their primaries, partly because Indiana has traditionally had significantly more Republicans than Democrats.

Debbie Wasserman Schults also came out and proclaimed that the Republican Party officially was taken over by the Tea Party as signified by Mourdock's nomination. Really? Would someone tell the rest of us why Mitt Romney is probably going to be our nominee again? Certainly not conservative, but certainly better than Obama.

Mourdock has changed the game in terms of how a Democrat can get into the Senate in this state, at least this seat.

6th Congressional District

The race for the 6th district honestly suprised me, in a few ways. First was that Travis Hankins was second, but that's what you get when you door knock like crazy, wear a cross on the outside of your shirt so people can notice, and Bible thump up and down the streets. Second was that Don Bates did not even make double digits in the numbers. My personal opinion was that he was the most reliable and solid candidate for the position. Third, Luke Messer won.

I really do not know how a political power broker and Republican establishment candidate won in the Tea Party wave we had with Mourdock, but that's that. Similar to Jim Lienhoop in Columbus winning City Council at Large, we will see if people end up liking Messer's record in the House.

Don't get me wrong, I'm backing Messer in the General, I just don't understand how an establishment type won. Oh well.

An extra note on the 6th District race. Travis Hankins, as is his rude tradition, it seems, never came out and thanked the candidates for a good race, nor did he congratulate Messer on his win. Don Bates did and he came in third.

If anything, Travis Hankins came off as a little brat with a messiah complex. Read what he wrote on his Facebook page
I will not be going to Congress

I want to first and foremost thank my personal Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for giving me the strength to run for U.S. Congress. May God alone receive all the Glory. If He wanted me in Congress then I would have won this race. I know He wanted me to run and I am closer to Him because of it.

Negative campaigning works.

No matter what lies ahead, I will never compromise. I will never sacrifice my principles for the sake of political gain. We ran a positive campaign and at the end of the day we can hold our head high knowing that we did it the right way. I want to thank everyone for their prayers and support.

God Bless,

Travis Hankins

" I KNOW He wanted me to run." ??? What? If God wanted you to run, you would have won, young man. Maybe He wanted you to run so you could soak up all the votes so Messer could win. You know, the guy you complain used negative campaigning, which he did.

Hankins is exactly the reason I hate mixing religion with politics. As soon as someone thinks God WANTS him to run, it's over. It's no longer about liberty or the Constitution, it's about that person's idea of what God wants. Our founding father certainly would hurl at that type of politics and certainly would remind them of the religious oppression they sought to escape.

Those are the results and that's how it is. Now let's back our people all the way up through November!

Friday, February 24, 2012

Four Candidates Stand Out in 6th Congressional Race




Of the 6 candidates who showed up to the We The People Indiana forum Thursday, 4 stood out as promising candidates worthy of attention. (Allen Smith does not have a campaign photo available to post.)

Just to note, Travis Hankins and Joe Sizemore were not able to attend this event. However, they were at a Lincoln Day Dinner speaking to other voters.

The six who were able to attend were (in order from left to right as they sat at the event) Bill Frazier, John Hatter, Luke Messer, Don Bates Jr., Joe Van Wyke, and Allen Smith. John Hatter and Allen Smith, by the way, are from Columbus.

I will get Bill Frazier and Joe Van Wyke out of the way by talking about their merits and views first.

Bill Frazier used to be a State Senator from Muncie. He seems to be quite complacent when it comes to lobbyists and the national mainstream media that seems to be extremely biased against Republicans (especially conservative Republicans). Although many of his views are correct (we need to cut spending, create jobs, lower taxes) those are talking points that have been on the frontier for a while. People already know this. What they want to know is how, where, why. I think Bill Frazier has the what down just fine, but he does not communicate the how, where or why.

Joe Van Wyke is a Christian. That was the answer to many of the questions asked that night. Personally, I have nothing against Christians. I am one myself, but I have something against someone who will try to get elected on the back of Jesus or God. You will be elected by the merits and the platforms you set forth and communicate. If you think we are going to vote for you because you are a Christian, then you are mistaken. Joe Van Wyke, however, is an ordinary citizen. He is not a politician. He has never run for office ever. He truly wants to get involved with government and make changes for the better. Smaller government, lower taxes, cutting spending. Again, he knows what, he does not communicate how and why.

John Hatter is a former US Army Reservist. He also worked for Senator Dan Coats back in the 80s. He has lived in Columbus for 17 years. Three people had a lot of energy that evening, and they showed it three different ways. John Hatter had a lot of potential energy when he spoke. He thought before he spoke, he gave thought to his words as he spoke, and he spoke from the heart to communicate what he thought. He did not sound like a politician. He sounded like a citizen who has taken it upon himself to inform himself. He also has a very well grounded knowledge of the founding of this nation and the types on issues the founders dealt with in ratifying the Constitution.

John Hatter immediately talked about spending and how reducing the amount of increased spending is not really a spending cut, although that is what Washington considers a spending cut. He says we need to spend less dollars this year than we did last year in order to truly say we have cut spending. He also talked about various appropriations bills that come before the floor of the House. To his conscience, he cannot vote for them since America has no money to appropriate to begin with. We have to borrow our money. He talked about cutting departments according to their constitutionality.

He also believes national defense is the Federal Government's first duty. He also said that the current government is broken. The president can issue executive orders that are as good as legislation and are never challenged by Congress. Congress rushes to push bills through and rest on the judgement of the executive branch for investigation and study, and the Judicial Branch to determine Constitutionality. Basically, he was saying we have a problem with the way bills are made to begin with. They are not made with the constitution in mind, only what is necessary for it to pass regardless of the Constitution.


Luke Messer is a politician. He has been in a government office or in the political environment for most of his career. He has been a Representative in the General Assembly, he has been an Executive Director for the State Republican Party, he served as Subcommittee Counsel on the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs for U.S. Congressman David McIntosh, Legal Counsel for U.S. Congressman Jim Duncan and as Press Secretary for U.S. Congressman Ed Bryant.

Though Luke Messer is very experienced in politics, he still did not recognize that the House of Representatives do not review Supreme Court Justice nominations (that is a function of the Senate, by the way). He communicated sentiment on a question about approving Justices who are for or against overturning the Roe vs Wade decision. That is a bit of a worry.

His responses were based on rhetoric used by the current GOP Representative establishment. His speech embodies a character that appears to already be adherent and submissive to the "team."

His platforms he communicated, though, were very well delivered. He talked more about the how and why. To his credit, he has worked with Mitch Daniels and the State House to keep budgets balanced. He talked also about how the federal government needs to shrink. He says it can shrink and still work, just look at Indiana.

He also communicated with a lot of forced energy. This can also be referenced as, "he talks like a politician."

Don Bates Jr. displayed a lot of kinetic energy when he spoke. He talked about making Obama a one term president. He talked about getting government out of the way. Don Bates is a Financial advisor. He said that we mostly have lawyers in Washington right now. They have caused a financial problem. According to him, they do not understand how to solve the problem, but people who have been in the finance world do.

Don Bates, as you may recall, also ran for Senate against 4 other opponents in the last primary in which Dan Coats won. On the issues discussed that evening, Don Bates has not strayed from his principles or his platforms. He still speaks against indebting our country further, and even gives solutions, as he did in the Senate race, as to how we need to solve the problem.

He stated his disapproval of America giving $8 billion to the U.N. when we cannot even pay bills. He proposed that all legislators take a 10% pay cut to show America that they are serious about the money problems in Washington. Don also called for an investigation into all agencies and departments with the premise that they all need to go, and that while they are under investigation, their Constitutional legitimacy is the first test of further existence. Don also said he supports the Fair Tax, though he doubts its ability to pass. He says a more realistic approach to taxation would be to reduce taxes to promote job growth. For instance, the corporate tax rate (which is at 38% currently).

Allen Smith has some good ideas and keeps up with the logic pace that the other 3 mentioned have, but he mis-speaks, I hope, in a few areas.

For instance, Allen said that the 6th District needs someone to give the district a sense of entitlement. An entitlement to what? He never said. Based on his responses to many of the questions, however, I hardly doubt he means entitlement programs and reliance on government. In fact, he talked about smaller government. He also said that he would be a voice for the people. That sounds cliche, but he really means it. From what he said, in opening and closing remarks, he will have his ear pressed to this district so he knows what to do.

Communication and listening to the district is NEVER a bad idea. Certainly we have had some representatives who have not done that (Baron Hill), but I do not believe people are looking for someone who has their finger in the ear looking for political direction. The voters are looking for people of conviction and principle. That also means that they will listen to the people and will act accordingly if they are quite loud, quite clear, and their mandate is known. This is a Republic, after all. Too many people want America to be a Democracy. That would be a travesty. We Democratically elect our officials to participate in a Republican government where they will carry the will of the people and also represent the voice of the people for a district. This also means a Representative will have to make some decisions that are not black and white and require discretion along with conviction.


All in all, the four pretty much agreed on most things. A question was posed as to what makes each of them different. Luke Messer points to his experience as a politician. Don Bates points to his experience as a financial advisor and how he is NOT a politician. John Hatter points to his brief time as a staffer in Dan Coat's office and his military background as well as never running for office. Allen Smith says he has integrity and wants to be the voice of the people.

Four candidates seem as though they will be very strong, going forward. John Hatter, Luke Messer, Don Bates, and Allen Smith. Click on their names to visit their web pages, if they have one, and take a closer look at each of them. This is your election. Pence is no longer going to be in this seat. It is up to the voters to decide what manner of replacement they want.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

The Government is Planning something Big; Top Secret





















I hope you read this before they find it, but the government is planning something big. here it is. alshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;rwerwerwefgfegerfgertggolaijser werfwerwwsdfergrgrgrgrwedswwtrolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs aergaolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs swwtrolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshswwtrolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs aergaolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs gaergolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;lswwtrolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs aergaolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs gaergolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olObama is trying toligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs


Harry Reid is trying to get this through Congress Under your nose!

afgarolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs oalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs afgarolaijgliahsligjasldfiahswwtrolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs aergaolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs gaergolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs afgarolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs lirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs aosdghalsdgoi golaijs aergaolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs gaergolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs afgarolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs gaergolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs afgarolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs swwtrolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs aergaolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs




gaergolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs afgarolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs swwtrolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs aergaolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs


gaergolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs afgarolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;lo


Here is how you can fight back!

swwtrolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs aergaolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs gaergolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgswwtrolaijgliahs




ligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs aergaolaijgliahsligjaswwtrolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs aergaolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs gaergolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs afgarolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs sldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalswwtrolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs aergaolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs gaergolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs afgarolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs




sdgoi golaijs gaergolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs afgarolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs oi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs


afgarolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs swwtrolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs aergaolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs gaergolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngalswwtrolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs aergaolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs gaergolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs olaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs afgarolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs ;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs afgarolaijgliahsligjasldfiahlirngal;rig;loalshaosdghalsdgoi golaijs



I hope you were able to read that. If not, then we are all doomed!

Thursday, December 29, 2011

The Ayes Have It, Against Voters

So what are elections anyway if the current administration and commissions act as though they never happened?

The Redevelopment Commission, Chaired by Jim Lienhoop whom the voters elected to City Council this year, by the way, voted to grant $865,000 to the shadow company CDI. Jim Lienhoop switched numerous times between calling CDI the City of Columbus and calling it a private or closed entity. As most of the public knows, CDI is a corporation created by the City according to state statues for the purpose of assisting in developing downtown Columbus by easing the bidding process. The difference between how CDI operates and how other development entities operate is secrecy. CDI is acting in secret.

CDI is closed to the public, but yet is the City of Columbus..... what?
As Mike Lovelace so eloquently submitted during the meeting, the financial books at CDI are bound in duct tape so as not to be accessible to the public. Obviously the books are not duct taped, but the effect is the same. The public is not welcome to see where their taxpayer dollars are going. We the people give CDI millions while they spend it on, literally, God (and possibly Ann DeVore, Valorie Chowning, etc), knows what. The State Board of Accounts even noted that CDI had broken 3 statues and standards when it comes to proper book keeping and accounting of their funds.

Now, let's look at the reality of why CDI even needs $865,000 48 hours before the change of power in City Hall.

A Little History
4 years ago, CDI accepted loans from various organizations, of which The Heritage Fund, where Commission member Matt Souza's wife Tracy Souza is currently Executive Director, was one. Apparently CDI has owed the money for quite some time, but the details of the loan state that it is to be paid back when the money is allocated to the by the City of Columbus.

It does not say the Redevelopment Commission. It says the City of Columbus. This, as Terry Coriden confirmed, could be done by the City Council.

Questions, and more questions
Several questions arise from this incident. Why did CDI take loans? They took loans to purchase the REMC property downtown and the Rhino Linings property for development reasons.

So why is this a liability of the Redevelopment Commission. If you ask Jim Lienhoop, he sees CDI as part of the City government. If you ask the people of Columbus, they see them as a secret corporation, a place for corruption. "Perception is reality" was a phrased used by many citizens and taxpayers at the meeting. If CDI were to go away, the City of Columbus would be forced to accept all assets and assume all liabilities. Apparently that extends to the present when CDI is not yet gone.

So why does the Redevelopment Commission not just pay off the debt? Why are they giving money to a closed book company in hopes they pay the debt? Lienhoop said they had considered that move, but had decided that they would not be able to get word from the loaners that the debt had been forgiven. Since the CDI is the one with the debt, could they not ask the Heritage Fund if the debt is forgiven?

Do they even have the power?
Could the City Council not give this money? Yes, they could. In fact, a question was raised about the legality and the authority behind the Redevelopment Commission appropriating funds without approval from City Council on amounts over $500,000
Any appropriation or expenditure of funds in excess of five hundred thousand dollars by the commission shall be subject to approval by the council..(Ord. 03-25 § 2, 2003)
Terry Coriden, Redevelopment Commission contracted counsel, said that he had not read the statue and ordinance in a while, but believes the commission has the power to do it since it is an obligation.The Ordinance clearly reads appropriation. This would seem to be an appropriation, therefore the approval would fall to the City Council.

Was this an official meeting?
This meeting was also not in compliance with Open Door policies as dictated by State Statute 5-14-1.5-5 which states that notice of public meetings must also be published on the internet gateway (website) in conjunction with the notice to newpapers as required by law. The meeting was not on the calendar, there was no agenda published, and neither the Mayor's office, Judy Johns-Jackson, nor City Clerk Treasurer Brenda Sullivan replied to a request for the location and time of the meeting.


Perception is often times reality.
This may have been merely about paying off creditors. Since CDI was involved, this meeting was seen as a secretive, shifty move by Jim Lienhoop and the Commission. Since this meeting was called for 48 hours before the change of power takes place, it seems corrupt. Since questions of legality went unsatisfactorily unanswered, it seems illegal.

Is it shifty, corrupt, and illegal? Maybe, but the Commission did not give the many people there a good reason to trust them. The constant double talk and interchanging the entities "Redevelopment Commission" and "CDI," The abruptness and unprecedented haste to push this through makes everything look underhanded. What does Jim Lienhoop expect?

The people elected this man!
Remember, ladies and gentlemen, you elected Jim Lienhoop to City Council at Large. I hope you realize what kind of decision that was. These are the types of decisions he makes. Hopefully the rest of the Council can work around him.

My Zazzle Gear