a href=" title="external link"> Next Council Meeting - Jan. 9th, 2006

The first City Council meeting of 2006 will most likely be the most important meeting of the entire year because of the issues that will be brought to the table, and the election of a new Council President & Vice-President.
Folks, unless you want another 2 years of bad decisions and shoving things through the Council (Scribner EDIT funds) too fast and too loose, you better get vocal with all the Council members you can, and insist that Dan Coffey be given the position in order to put some checks and balances on the runaway money train that's been plowing through New Albany.
Donnie Blevins has been embroiled in too much controversy already, and is obviously the Mayors favorite Council member given the way he's been taken care of. He's already nothing more than a puppet for Garner. He has no idea what any of the issues are really about. Trust me. I tried to converse with him about a couple and it was impossible. This suggestion is just ridiculous.
So, we figure they are really going to go for Jack Messer. However, there are many concerns about him, as he is already sitting on multiple boards, and commission, which I will list later, and he is a City police officer.

Let me point what I've learned from the office of the Indiana Attorney General, Steve Carter, concerning dual office holding. Did you know they actually have a printed report addressing this very issue? It's very enlightening.
Article 3, Section 1, separation of powers doctrine.
"No person holding a lucrative office or appointment under the United States or under this State is eligible to a seat in the General Assembly; and no person may hold more than one lucrative office at the same time, except as expressly permitted in this Constitution."
Lucrative Offices: (short list) City Council member, City Judge, City Sanitary district board member, City Mayor, Deputy Mayor, County Commissioner, Assessor, etc.
"The Indiana Constitutuon prohibits dual office holding. When a person violates the constitutional and statutory provisions that govern dual office holding, the person may, in some instances, lose his/her former official position, commit the Class D felony of conflict of interest, or be removed from his/her official position."

ALSO,
The two articles that appeared in today's Courier Journal are shedding some much needed 'sunlight' on the issues we have been trying to discuss recently on this blog.
We have wasted too much space and too much energy exchanging perspectives, and sharing experiences about why we are all doing the things we are doing..
It's time to return to the important issues facing the City right now, and discuss these situations, offer our opinions, and look at a few facts.
The Sewer article, by Ben Hershberg, points out that word from the EPA is that they are "...in active discussions with the city", and meanwhile our ability to allow credits for sewer expansions, so new development can occur, is still compromised until the EPA is satisfied that the legal agreement, made in 2002 between then Mayor Overton and the EPA, has been fulfilled.
Our agreement was to eliminate overflows of the system, and backups of raw sewage that cause harmful, untreated waste to flow into the streets, drain into groundwater, and discharge directly into the Ohio River.
We are assembling photos of many examples of these occurances, and will post them at the earliest opportunity.
Meanwhile you can visit a website, www.in.gov/idem/water/compbr/compeval/ssoreport and find New Albany's reports of overflows, the date the overflow occurred, and the site of the overflows. A reason is also required by this sytem of reporting, and you will notice the City indeed reported a "sabatoge" at the plant, that caused the system to blow for almost 16 hours before the problem was discovered.
We still question the City's ability to aquire the EPA's approval for the Scribner Place project to hook up to the system, and we expect to get that question answered when the EPA hands down its decision about the City correcting the problems per the 2002 agreement.
We have a lot of things to talk about regarding this article and the situations that surround the entire issue, but for now, we will allow you folks to leave your impressions about the matter, and we will return with more info soon.

The other article, regarding Garbage rate increases, is another hot topic, and the article raises some interesting questions. Why is Garner asking the Council to approves a raise in the rates for 2007, in the first meeting of the 2006 session? Think he's worried about his re-eviction, ...er, re-election campaign?
Didn't they say they already agreed to rate increases every year for the next 5 years of the privatization contract? Why does he now need the Council to approve a rate increase?

They have hit us with a lot of things to talk about, but we are holding the information that will pull all this together, and we can even tie it with a bow.
Have a good discussion, and we will return tonight.
Happy Christmas!!!