I have officially filed my candidacy for Fishers Town Council in District 4. While Fishers has 7 council districts, they embrace the odd system of allowing all registered voters in Fishers vote for all 7 districts. I have often criticised this system, calling for a traditional city system where some seats are pure districts and some at large.
I have for several years been active in community affairs in Fishers, being a member of the board of directors of my homeowners association, being a charter member of the Kiwanis Club of Geist, and being politically active and outspoken. I have attended numerous Town Council meetings, township board meetings, and others, including the City-Town Study Committee, where I was an active member in 2009.
Among other things, my strongest belief is that Fishers should be a real City, with a City form of government such as that which all other Indiana communities possess, with a Mayor elected by the people, and a city council with real districts. I first called for Fishers to change to a City in January 2007. I continued that move with the founding of CityYes, founded by citizens of all political persuasions who joined together in their common belief that becoming a City is best for the future of Fishers. I was privileged to be CityYes' first chairman, a post I held until July 2010. I submitted the names of 1700 registered voters of Fishers to the Town Council in May 2010, asking for a November 2010 referendum on the city-town question, but the Town Council ignored their legal duty to certify the question and still have not done so.
I have often called for more open, transparent and responsive government in Fishers, a government not easily accountable to the voters in its current form. When I found that former Town Council member Charlie White had moved out of his district, an act by which he forfeited office when it happened, and had illegally continued to act as a Town Council member, I conducted my own investigation, held a news conference, and forced his resignation. As it appeared to me that White had also committed voter fraud as part of his cover-up, I met my legal duty as an attorney, by reporting the facts I had found to the Prosecutor's Office, and asked that a special prosecutor be appointed and a Grand Jury convened. Two special prosecutors were appointed, and I understand that a Grand Jury may be held in February.
Further, I have often appeared at Town Council meetings and questioned their spending and other actions. Fully 15% of the 2010 Fishers budget went to debt service, which is cause for concern. I have also questioned the council's willingness to pledge public money, often in the form of TIF districts, to projects that ultimately do not get off the ground. I pledge to be prudent and careful in spending tax dollars, and to try to limit debt being incurred by Fishers. I would also have a higher threshold for pledging public money to private business ventures, without some high degree of expectation both of success and of public benefit.
My election to the Town Council will bring an honest outsider's voice and new blood to the Town Council. I ask for the support of all Fishers residents who are concerned for the future of this community. Please visit my website at http://www.purvis4fishers.com/ to learn more, volunteer, or make a contribution.
Greg Purvis
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
The Making of Enemies
This is a commentary about the Fishers Town Council, and how they seem to be generating, not just political opponents, but political enemies. I draw a fairly sharp distinction between the two. An "opponent" by my way of thinking, is someone with whom you have a reasonable, and respectful, difference of opinion. An "enemy" by contrast, has gone beyond mere opposition, and is characterized by a determination to overcome the other side.
I think I have tended to be an "opponent" of much, but not all, that the Fishers Town Council has done and stands for. As an example, I tend to be wary of throwing tax incentives and other taxpayer dollars (such as TIF districts) at future developments without some pretty firm evidence that the development is a "good thing" and will generate positive dollars for the community. After all, it IS the taxpayer's money. In this, I tend to differ in degree from the majority of the Town Council, but at least two members of the Council have recently shown a willingness to dissent somewhat along my lines of thinking.
But the Town Council has so angered some people, over some issues, that they have made, and are making, rank enemies, not just opponents. Indeed, many if not most of these enemies are within the ranks of the Republican Party, in areas which vote heavily Republican. The first sign of this was when Scott Faultless backed a young challenger to council incumbent Art Levine in the 2007 Republican Primary, a primary fight which was surprisingly bitter. Perhaps this cowed Mr. Levine, but he seems to follow the lead of Mr. Faultless since then.
About the same time, the Battle of Geist was happening. An area heavily Republican and well-to-do, they were angered by the Council's blunt determination to forcibly annex them, a process over which Geist residents had little say. The annexation went thru, and now those folks are Fishers voters. They believe, with some merit, that their taxes will rise, and for little or no additional services. Geist residents felt, and still feel, that they were wantonly put upon by the Town Council members, none of whom they could vote for ... then. By the Geist belief, it was all about their taxes, period, which the Council coveted to cover a rising amount of bond debt. They felt lied about, and lied to. Many of them have become hardened opponents of the current Council, when they could have been allies.
But it seems the Town Council did not learn. They are now proposing a "merger" with Fall Creek Township (the eastern part of Fishers and adjacent unincorporated area) which would eliminate township government (which is independently elected), give the township's tax money to Fishers, and in one stroke, incorporate ALL of the unincorporated area into Fishers. Needless to say, many residents in the unincorporated area, who see no need for any of this, are not too pleased. The large majority of those people are Republicans. Of the 3 township appointees to the merger study committee, 2 voted against the merger plan.
The merger is up for public hearing on November 29, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. at Hamilton Southeastern High School. http://www.fishers.in.us/egov/docs/1290187430_1063.htm I urge all interested citizens to attend.
Another way the merger has angered people, is that there is already a pending legal petition signed by 1700 Fishers voters to have a referendum on changing Fishers from a town form of government to a city. The Town Council has refused to even discuss having this referendum, even tho they were legally required to approve it. The CityYes committee which submitted it asked that it be set for a vote on November 2, 2010, which obviously has passed. They show no signs of EVER letting it be voted on. Indeed, this has led to speculation that the merger is just a way to try to prevent the "city-town" referendum and keep the same form of government, without an elected mayor, and other changes.
Isn't this the height of political arrogance? Has the Town Council forgotten that they are supposed to be the servants of the community, and not its masters? Do they fear a public vote that much? For better or worse, the people have ultimate power, and right, to determine their own form of government. And that sort of arrogance makes people angry, and turns them into enemies, not just opponents.
I think I have tended to be an "opponent" of much, but not all, that the Fishers Town Council has done and stands for. As an example, I tend to be wary of throwing tax incentives and other taxpayer dollars (such as TIF districts) at future developments without some pretty firm evidence that the development is a "good thing" and will generate positive dollars for the community. After all, it IS the taxpayer's money. In this, I tend to differ in degree from the majority of the Town Council, but at least two members of the Council have recently shown a willingness to dissent somewhat along my lines of thinking.
But the Town Council has so angered some people, over some issues, that they have made, and are making, rank enemies, not just opponents. Indeed, many if not most of these enemies are within the ranks of the Republican Party, in areas which vote heavily Republican. The first sign of this was when Scott Faultless backed a young challenger to council incumbent Art Levine in the 2007 Republican Primary, a primary fight which was surprisingly bitter. Perhaps this cowed Mr. Levine, but he seems to follow the lead of Mr. Faultless since then.
About the same time, the Battle of Geist was happening. An area heavily Republican and well-to-do, they were angered by the Council's blunt determination to forcibly annex them, a process over which Geist residents had little say. The annexation went thru, and now those folks are Fishers voters. They believe, with some merit, that their taxes will rise, and for little or no additional services. Geist residents felt, and still feel, that they were wantonly put upon by the Town Council members, none of whom they could vote for ... then. By the Geist belief, it was all about their taxes, period, which the Council coveted to cover a rising amount of bond debt. They felt lied about, and lied to. Many of them have become hardened opponents of the current Council, when they could have been allies.
But it seems the Town Council did not learn. They are now proposing a "merger" with Fall Creek Township (the eastern part of Fishers and adjacent unincorporated area) which would eliminate township government (which is independently elected), give the township's tax money to Fishers, and in one stroke, incorporate ALL of the unincorporated area into Fishers. Needless to say, many residents in the unincorporated area, who see no need for any of this, are not too pleased. The large majority of those people are Republicans. Of the 3 township appointees to the merger study committee, 2 voted against the merger plan.
The merger is up for public hearing on November 29, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. at Hamilton Southeastern High School. http://www.fishers.in.us/egov/docs/1290187430_1063.htm I urge all interested citizens to attend.
Another way the merger has angered people, is that there is already a pending legal petition signed by 1700 Fishers voters to have a referendum on changing Fishers from a town form of government to a city. The Town Council has refused to even discuss having this referendum, even tho they were legally required to approve it. The CityYes committee which submitted it asked that it be set for a vote on November 2, 2010, which obviously has passed. They show no signs of EVER letting it be voted on. Indeed, this has led to speculation that the merger is just a way to try to prevent the "city-town" referendum and keep the same form of government, without an elected mayor, and other changes.
Isn't this the height of political arrogance? Has the Town Council forgotten that they are supposed to be the servants of the community, and not its masters? Do they fear a public vote that much? For better or worse, the people have ultimate power, and right, to determine their own form of government. And that sort of arrogance makes people angry, and turns them into enemies, not just opponents.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Knee-jerk politics
Election Day rolled around Tuesday and I spent all day in and out of the polls. I spent a part of the day at a couple of Hamilton County polling places with Democratic Secretary of State candidate Vop Osili, you know, the guy with the funny name who also was endorsed by the FOP, firefighters, teachers, and most major newspapers. You know, the guy whose opponent couldn't seem to follow the very election laws he was trying to get elected to enforce.
People like Vop when they meet him. He is bright, engaging, smart, articulate, and has a brilliant smile and easy manner. So I was pleased when voters at strongly Republican precincts greeted him (mostly) with smiles and "pleased to meet you!" I thought maybe they really "got it" this time, and the polls and pundits were wrong.
Until we talked to a perky 20-ish blonde voter, who seemed delighted to meet a candidate. Then with a confused smile, she sheepishly asked if Vop were Democrat or Republican. When told Democrat, she got more confused. When further informed that Vop's opponent was under felony investigation for voter fraud, she looked even more confused, and said, "But he's a Republican, isn't he?" as if that excused everything. Stunned, we let her go on her confused path to the voting booth.
Sadly, that young woman actually turned out to be typical for Hamilton County. While Vop led the statewide candidates in Hamilton County, returns indicate the drop-off for White was small, perhaps 8%. I am still stunned that any informed, intelligent voter could or would vote for a potential felon to safeguard their elections, and that party label was all that mattered for far too many.
But conversely, I also spoke to many Republican precinct workers, probably the most involved people in their party, who did NOT vote for Charlie White, but voted for one of the other two candidates. They put principle and facts first, and should be commended. But they seem to be a tiny fraction of the whole.
Lest anyone think this is a partisan diatribe, Democrats, buckle your seatbelts, you get it next.
Some readers will already know the shameful story of the 5th District congressional race on the Democratic side in 2010. An intelligent, articulate physician by the name of Nasser Hanna, midwest born and raised, and a Fishers resident, was preparing for a mighty battle against Dan Burton. He raised money, criss-crossed the district many times, and made thousands of phone calls. But he had a primary opponent, Tim Crawford, who was in fact no Democrat, but a Republican poll worker and Tea Party member. Crawford raised no money, made no appearances prior to the primary. Crawford won, handily. His victory was attributed to ballot position and not-too-subtle racism. After the primary, Crawford's sole campaign appearance, with the Hamilton County Democratic Women, went so badly for Crawford that he briefly promised to resign, then backed off that, never to be seen or heard from again. Crawford remained on the ballot.
No Democratic leader that I know of would admit to voting for Crawford, and I certainly did not. But while Democrats had no GOOD choices, Crawford was certainly not our choice. Personally, I voted for the Libertarian candidate, feeling he was the only one in the race who actually had an intelligent thought. But rank and file Democrats in Hamilton County appear to have voted in lock-step for Crawford, as his vote totals were nearly identical to the base party vote. There was one exception. An unknown voter in my home precinct wrote in, "A Real Democrat please". Bless you my neighbor!
I cry SHAME! on any Republican who voted for Charlie White and SHAME! again for any Democrat who voted for Tim Crawford. You did not do your homework as voters. You voted for party label with no clue as to what the candidate stood for, or what baggage he carried. Those were ignorant, petty votes, and your party and your community will suffer for them. Voters simply must do a better job of educating themselves and voting intelligently. Party label is not enough, never has been, never will be.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Charlie White saga continues
Indianapolis TV station WRTV-6 is reporting that the Hamilton County Prosecutor WILL ask for the appointment of a special prosecutor in the Charlie White voter fraud investigation. The Channel 6 report is here: http://www.theindychannel.com/news/25230887/detail.html. As those who pay attention will note, I was the one who first called for this action, followed by Democratic State Chairman Dan Parker, and Democratic Secretary of State candidate Vop Osili.
Additionally, several people have asked to see the map that I used to illustrate just how far outside of his district Charlie moved, which also illustrates how far he had to go from his real home to vote in the May 2010 primary. Well, I only have it in PDF format, which I cannot figure out how to post here, and I don't know how to convert it, so unless someone can teach me how, you will just have to email me and ask for it.
Charlie is now doubtless going to have to hire a criminal defense attorney, and this will lead to a huge distraction from his race for Secretary of State. Also, the Town of Fishers is investigating the repercussions on its official actions.
Much as Charlie and the Republican Party would love for this to be "no big deal" and go away, it just is NOT going away, but seems to get more and more serious every day. I personally have spoken to many Republicans who will vote Democratic or Libertarian in order to show their distaste for Charlie's actions. Good for them. We don't need a law-breaker as a law-maker.
Additionally, several people have asked to see the map that I used to illustrate just how far outside of his district Charlie moved, which also illustrates how far he had to go from his real home to vote in the May 2010 primary. Well, I only have it in PDF format, which I cannot figure out how to post here, and I don't know how to convert it, so unless someone can teach me how, you will just have to email me and ask for it.
Charlie is now doubtless going to have to hire a criminal defense attorney, and this will lead to a huge distraction from his race for Secretary of State. Also, the Town of Fishers is investigating the repercussions on its official actions.
Much as Charlie and the Republican Party would love for this to be "no big deal" and go away, it just is NOT going away, but seems to get more and more serious every day. I personally have spoken to many Republicans who will vote Democratic or Libertarian in order to show their distaste for Charlie's actions. Good for them. We don't need a law-breaker as a law-maker.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Law-breakers should not be law-makers
This week I have had occasion to expose some misdeeds of a local politician, not just for misconduct in his current office, but something so significant that it should disqualify him from holding any public office.
Of course, the politician is Charlie White, Hamilton County Republican Party chair, member of the Fishers Town Council, and Republican nominee for Secretary of State. Mr. White moved out of his Town Council district, but claims he was unaware that he was out of his district. Frankly, that notion (that White was ignorant of his own district) is preposterous for many reasons, not the least of which is that his new home is completely across town from his district, and also is the district of Council President Scott Faultless, with whom White has openly fought in the past, but also because White helped draw those districts. He then served illegally, and was paid, for seven months.
As offensive as that seems, it is not the worst. After he moved, White, who is an attorney, voted illegally in a precinct he did not live in, using a false voter registration at his ex-wife's address. Even if White had an excuse for the other misconduct, does he expect anyone to believe that he did not know where he was at when he went to vote? Does he think that we will not question his conduct?
No, the evidence is strong that he did this intentionally, so that he could hang onto office in his political base. If it was intentional, then White may well be a felon. Look at the following provision of the Indiana Code:
IC 3-14-2-11
Voting in other precincts
Sec. 11. Except as provided by IC 3-10-10, IC 3-10-11, or IC 3-10-12, a person who knowingly votes or offers to vote in a precinct except the one in which the person is registered and resides commits a Class D felony. (emphasis added)
Voting in other precincts
Sec. 11. Except as provided by IC 3-10-10, IC 3-10-11, or IC 3-10-12, a person who knowingly votes or offers to vote in a precinct except the one in which the person is registered and resides commits a Class D felony. (emphasis added)
Now, Charlie White is claiming that he did not realize when he moved the beginning of March 2010 that he was outside of his district. But when he voted 2 months later in the May primary, he knew for a certainty that he did not live at his ex-wife's address miles from his new home. It is this near-certain knowledge that is of the most concern. Other than that, this would probably be only a local matter, of not much concern in a statewide race.
But, Charlie White either knowingly broke the law, and thought he could get by with it because of his position, or he is the most ignorant, careless politician imaginable. Either way, he broke the law. Law-breakers should not be law-makers. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, independents, none of you should consider voting for this person. There are other choices, chose someone to enforce our election laws who does not break them himself.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
A Myth of Fishers
One of the consistent themes brought forward by supporters of the Fishers Town Council is the claim that Fishers has the lowest property tax rates in Hamilton County and thus shows what a wonderful job they are doing, and/or how this shows how a "town" form of government, which has no elected Mayor, is superior to a City form of government, which of course does have popular election of a Mayor.
The problem is, it does not seem to be true.
At least according to a report of the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance, which has issued a report on local property tax rates for 2010. That full report is available here: http://www.in.gov/dlgf/files/2010_Effective_Tax_Rates.pdf
Fishers has two different basic tax rates, one for the half of the city in Delaware Township (the half generally west of I-69) and Fall Creek Township (the east half). For Delaware Township, the Fishers effective property tax rate for a homestead is 0.95%. For Fall Creek Township, it is 1.01%.
Ok, that doesn't sound too bad. But compare to Carmel, with which Fishers' town leaders have had a running feud. Carmel's homestead tax rate is 0.91%., LOWER than both Fishers' township rates. Worse, from the viewpoint of Fishers Town Council President Scott Faultless, in the "All other property" category, which includes virtually all business property, Carmel comes in at 1.75% and Fishers - Fall Creek comes in higher at 2.07% and Fishers - Delaware comes still higher at 2.08%.
Carmel and Fishers are similar in many ways, except for their form of government. True, there are criticisms of Carmel for its large bond debt, but Fishers has a large bond debt as well, as do the schools of both communities. Plus, as shown by a recent newspaper article, Carmel has about 3 times the assessed property value of Fishers, most of that business property, which lessens the tax impact of the building boom the City of Carmel is on. Or perhaps having a single leader, a Mayor, is better at attracting businesses (which pay higher taxes) , than the leaderless Town of Fishers.
The problem is, it does not seem to be true.
At least according to a report of the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance, which has issued a report on local property tax rates for 2010. That full report is available here: http://www.in.gov/dlgf/files/2010_Effective_Tax_Rates.pdf
Fishers has two different basic tax rates, one for the half of the city in Delaware Township (the half generally west of I-69) and Fall Creek Township (the east half). For Delaware Township, the Fishers effective property tax rate for a homestead is 0.95%. For Fall Creek Township, it is 1.01%.
Ok, that doesn't sound too bad. But compare to Carmel, with which Fishers' town leaders have had a running feud. Carmel's homestead tax rate is 0.91%., LOWER than both Fishers' township rates. Worse, from the viewpoint of Fishers Town Council President Scott Faultless, in the "All other property" category, which includes virtually all business property, Carmel comes in at 1.75% and Fishers - Fall Creek comes in higher at 2.07% and Fishers - Delaware comes still higher at 2.08%.
Carmel and Fishers are similar in many ways, except for their form of government. True, there are criticisms of Carmel for its large bond debt, but Fishers has a large bond debt as well, as do the schools of both communities. Plus, as shown by a recent newspaper article, Carmel has about 3 times the assessed property value of Fishers, most of that business property, which lessens the tax impact of the building boom the City of Carmel is on. Or perhaps having a single leader, a Mayor, is better at attracting businesses (which pay higher taxes) , than the leaderless Town of Fishers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)