Tough Questions
This is a very healthy thread, so I won't break it yet.
I took the last version of the main post and slotted it into the comments below - it's archived at comment number 43 or so.
We've got pros and cons on the mayor's fix of the money-bleeding sanitation operation, a discussion of the pending appointment of Jack Messer as the ordinance enforcement officer, and the suggestion that the city begin to bring back the idea of a municipal court.
Please continue to discuss, debate, offer links or alternative solutions.
Some folks felt my "bulletin" about the Messer appointment was misleading. As I understand it, funds from the OEO authorization will be allocated toward police operations, and for the next five months, that's acceptable to Chief Harl. Messer will remain in uniform, remain a sworn officer, and begin to demonstrate how the enforcement operation will work. Personally, I think Jack Messer as OEO is almost too good to be true. I hope we not only appoint him, but keep him on the job permanently.
There's some good stuff in the comments below - reasonable debate and disagreements included - that bode well for the level of discourse about public affairs.
Edited and posted at 10 p.m., Wednesday, July 27, 2005
I took the last version of the main post and slotted it into the comments below - it's archived at comment number 43 or so.
We've got pros and cons on the mayor's fix of the money-bleeding sanitation operation, a discussion of the pending appointment of Jack Messer as the ordinance enforcement officer, and the suggestion that the city begin to bring back the idea of a municipal court.
Please continue to discuss, debate, offer links or alternative solutions.
Some folks felt my "bulletin" about the Messer appointment was misleading. As I understand it, funds from the OEO authorization will be allocated toward police operations, and for the next five months, that's acceptable to Chief Harl. Messer will remain in uniform, remain a sworn officer, and begin to demonstrate how the enforcement operation will work. Personally, I think Jack Messer as OEO is almost too good to be true. I hope we not only appoint him, but keep him on the job permanently.
There's some good stuff in the comments below - reasonable debate and disagreements included - that bode well for the level of discourse about public affairs.
Edited and posted at 10 p.m., Wednesday, July 27, 2005
posted by All4Word at 12:30 PM
47 Comments:
You have no idea what you're talking about. I will gladly pay $21 a month to keep these good men and women on the city's payroll. And I'm telling my councilman, Larry Kochert that.
You act like this private company won a bidding war. The city workers do a good job and Garner's administration has been running sanitation well. Overton left them holding the bag. But I don't want these people to lose their jobs and I'll put my money where my mouth is.
I never thought of it as a bidding war. But you could start your own sanitation company with the extra $900,000. Every year.
Randy I'm not sure how it has been in other places that you have lived, but this is a real tight knit community of hard working blue collar people that DO stick together. If you were making reference to me being your union friend and not having my facts straight, so be it. It was only a comparison and feelings. Two wrongs do not make a right.
I stand with the workers. Outsourcing America is not the answer to a lot of the problems that we are faced with today. Honestly I wonder where you come up with some of the ideas you try and sell others on. You have some nerve trying to back Garner on this one...
I suppose, Ed, you'll be calling Bill Schmidt to tell him you want the waste collection charge increased to $21.
I'm not really sure how I "have some nerve" on this. I've looked at the situation, expressed my opinion, and explained why. I've encouraged folks who disagree with me to call their council representatives to see if they can get the waste collection charge increased.
I stand with the workers, too, Ed. But as it stands now, I don't think the subsidy to the sanitation operation passes the smell test. It can't be justified.
New Albany is an aging town. New Albany is a town with a lower-than-average per capita income. Folks on fixed incomes and with limited means shouldn't be forced to pay 150% of what they are paying now.
If jobs were being lost entirely, I might take the other tack. In fact, I did take the other tack. It made my stomach drop when I heard about it. I expressed my opposition. Then I looked at the numbers.
The subsidy is indefensible. It never should have reached this point and the city administration took 18 months before reaching this decision.
The sewer board is screaming lawsuit if this doesn't stop.
As a city, we either need to pay for the service (raise the rates) or find a way to get the service without cannibalizing other revenue streams.
It's perfectly acceptable to me if a majority of the residents of New Albany voluntarily seek a rate increase, however hard to defend it might be. I think I read where the mayor said he'd be fine with that, too.
But he's not going to say that is the best choice and find himself floating away on an ice floe.
In your heart, you know this is not as simple an issue as pro-worker or anti-worker. There is room for debate.
You can just imagine the same furor, but from a different group, if the mayor proposed a rate increase without stemming the losses from the sanitation department. That group would say "the mayor doesn't care about the elderly homeowners; the mayor doesn't care about the working man; the mayor is anti-minority; the mayor is anti-renter - all to protect his union buddies and political cronies."
You spend enough time over on the random objection generator to know that's exactly how the discussion would go.
Kind of like the hostile way you accuse me of "having some nerve."
THAT'S what I don't get about this town. Why is it that people can't disagree without waging a lifetime blood feud? Why can't people express an opinion without it becoming a matter of personal hatred?
I don't begrudge you or anyone expressing your opinion. Why do you begrudge me expressing mine?
This has to be a tough weekend for every person in New Albany who believes in collective action. It's tough for me. It's tough for you.
There will be a lot of venting of anger and harsh words being thrown around. The question that arises here affects everybody, including the tight-knit, hard-working blue-collar families who don't have a new job waiting for them at the end of September. It includes the union pensioners, the pink- and white-collar folks, the retirees who didn't have unions to protect them, the hidden Hispanic community, and many more.
I meet people every day who are struggling. How do I defend a 50% rate increase for waste removal to those folks?
What do you have against those folks, Ed?
It is called a community pitching in and helping one another Randy. Real sorry you don't see that and feel sorry for you that it may not work out the way you wish it to. People are loosing jobs contrea to what your SPONA post says other wise. These workers are the fall guys and you know it. My statement stands. I'll fight for these people, sorry you do not get it. No I won't call Schmitt and waste my breathe, I'll just pay up and go on with. Remember,I'm the working class that carries the burden of helping pay for society with my hard earned taxed money.
Remember the statement you just put in text about looking at the numbers,folks on fixed incomes, etc when their taxes are raised again and again. Ask you wife how many increases we had in the 90's to pay for other crap in this city. Take off the rose coloured glasses Randy, this is real life.
Ed, it would be nice to have you explain what the hell you mean by the working class. As opposed to what? The leisure class?
Pitching in? And what, leaving behind the poor, those on fixed incomes and with real working class disadvantages?
Are you one of those "I got mine, tough for you" kind of guys?
And please provide the evidence that anyone is losing his or her job? Any evidence whatsoever, please.
I don't think the city's mission is for 50,000 people to waste $900,000+ subsidizing 20 jobs. The "real life" calculus is that we all know the $900,000 can be better used to improve life for the 50,000. I feel for the people who are worrying about losing their jobs, but the long-term, greater good is not being served by the current sanitation system.
This is simply a BAD move.
Do you guys get it now?
This administration has not made one good decision yet!
How are we to believe they can suddenly make one now?
Did the CM's know about this before the votes?
Do you think the Mayor will give up his salary as Director of the Sewer Board?
How can anyone defend this move?
No Randy I am not one of those "type people", more so for all the people. The employees that are moving to the street department is a good thing, the other workers who are being laid off and picked up by another company will lose every benefit that they had with the city. You sir have a different view of this whole mess than most of us.
I consider anyone doing labor to be working class, whatever the trade may be. The real working class have disadvantages, please sir do not look down your nose at us as over paid workers, we work for every cent we bring home.
Ed,
I understand your anger and I have some pretty strong conflicted feelings about this situation, but for you to suggest that Randy is looking down his nose at blue collar workers is totally out of line.
As someone who's been both blue and white collar at various times and probably makes less money than you, I've heard the holier than thou crap from both sides my entire life. Integrity (or the lack of it) isn't granted upon the donning of a certain color collar.
Jeff, Randy my feelings on this situation are strong. For me to get this upset about something of this magnitude is saying something. It hits just a little to close to home being a union worker. Why I made the statement of looking down your nose is simple:
"If jobs were being lost entirely, I might take the other tack. In fact, I did take the other tack. It made my stomach drop when I heard about it. I expressed my opposition. Then I looked at the numbers."
numbers compared to real people who have been loyal to their gross job of picking up our garbage, and this is the thanks they get. Sorry, that is looking down the nose stuff I'm referencing and it is not out of line. That is class warfare with the lowest level jobs taking the hit yet again. Huge difference in having an education and being a small business owner or working in IT compared to getting up every morning and riding the back of a garbage truck for years.
Come on guys, for some folks, thats all they have or the work they can get. Have some sympathy for human beings instead of what is better for the city, trim the pork elsewhere before laying people off. That's all I'm saying...
So, you agree that it is "better for the city?" Again...why should 50,000 subsidize 20 jobs for $900,000+?
I'm not sure I understand the comment about one poster made about increases during the 90's. My living expenses have certainly gone up due to increased utility costs and increased insurance costs but 2 years ago my property taxes actually went down from $500 per year to $360 per year. I consider this a bargain.
One note about unions, you shouldn't assume that just because someone is in a union they are paid more and have better benefits. Many non-union companies pay more than union companies. A few years ago I at a company where I worked a union came in to organize and they were going to ask for less wages and benefits than the employees already had.
No one here is talking about the pink-collar workers. It is the single, working mothers doing low- paid clerical and service work who suffer from increases in costs for services and utilities. And being downsized or reorganized out of a job is a regular fact of life for them.
I'll try this again, if all of the sanitation workers are retained by the city in some capacity, I have no problem with that, that is the way it should be.
We will take care of our own recycling and dispose of it properly unlike it has been since curbside gathering failed last admin. We also will take care of our garbage, the one bag we have every two weeks, since we recycle, compost or take care of yard waste through composting, ect.
So give me back my $50 dollars I was charged for a oversized garbage can and take your monthly fee and stick up your ass. You don't like it, tough.
Interesting point. I confirmed today that with the city's contract partner, recycling will be enhanced to include cardboard and a wider range of plastics than our currently limited system.
Right now, the city is doing a lousy job on recycling, partly because of equipment, but also because breakdowns and delays in pickups motivate the workers to mix recycling with trash just to get the weekly work done.
Channel 32 is doing a hidden-camera piece exposing just how bad a job we've done with recycling. That increases the landfill fees, ultimately.
Remember folks, this move wasn't aimed at the crews or management. These trucks are a complete disaster and getting out from under those expenses and getting trucks that work is the motivating factor.
But keeping all those workers on the city payroll isn't going to happen in the short term. Maybe 10 of the 27 will stay. The rest will have jobs with Industrial Disposal, if they want them.
"But keeping all those workers on the city payroll isn't going to happen in the short term. Maybe 10 of the 27 will stay. The rest will have jobs with Industrial Disposal, if they want them."
Real sorry you feel this way. It takes time but peoples real colors finally show through.
Your behavior is completely bizarre, Ed.
I know this is not indicative of your ability to process thought. Why don't you try to contribute something to the conversation instead of indulging in ad hominem attacks.
You haven't refuted a fact or made a suggestion intended to persuade anyone. I think most of us here would love to hear your perspective. But instead, you sit up on the hill, with all that money and time and technology and waste it with asinine statements like your little true colors remark.
I called the deficit indefensible. Defend it, then. I don't think folks will pay the freight to cover it, especially when the job can be done for less and the workers being displaced have been offered jobs with the new operation. Do you think the residents of New Albany will pay it, should pay it? Then say that.
Make a contribution. Your failure to understand my true colors notwithstanding, your personal animus toward me does nothing to enlighten anyone, except perhaps about you.
And as your friend, I'd love to see you show these other folks why I value your insights. So far, you've only attacked me. Attack the issue and offer us information or alternatives.
Monday, July 25, 2005
New Albany Sanitation Workers, This One's For You
We don't always appreciate things until they are gone. And sometimes we never think about what it would be like if something we take for granted disappears.
I'm taking time today to say "Thanks!" to the hardworking men and women of our Sanitation Department. These fine people do the dirtiest, hardest, and probably one of the most low-paid jobs in the City, and none of us could get by without them.
Thanks for picking up all the stuff I set out each week, even though it usually doesn't all fit into my city-issued can. My used cat litter, old food, assorted bits and pieces of nasty rubbish. You pick it up, all of it, week after week, year after year.
Thanks for setting my elderly mom's trash can close to her house when it's emptied so she doesn't have to move it so far. I wonder how many other people you do this same thing for?
Thanks for showing up at my house, after hours, when you heard I needed a new lid on my trash can. Thanks for bringing me a new lid, and installing it to boot. Even though your Assistant Supervisor told me I couldn't have one because there was a budget crisis. You knew there were boxes of them available and you took care of me, on your own time.
Thanks for working in the blazing heat and the freezing cold. Week after week, year after year.
Thanks for working your a**es off to catch up when you get a day off for a holiday.
Thanks for helping teach my 6-year-old daughter just what hard work and ethics are all about. She watches you do your job every Tuesday morning, and she knows you do the same thing for the whole city. In her eyes, you're more important to this community than the guy in the suit on the 3rd floor downtown. And I suspect she's not the only one with this opinion.
Thanks for taking it on the chin because of mismanagement and poor decisions by the people who are supposed to be in charge. From the Mayor who leased garbage trucks that can't do the job, to the Mayor who thinks buying new vehicles and shoring up the general fund with our sewer money is okay, you're bearing the brunt of their incompetence. It isn't fair, and you don't deserve it.
When you're looking for support to save your jobs, count me in. I'd gladly pay another $10 a month to keep you on the job, doing your job, with your benefits intact. I can see how you benefit this city. I can't say the same for the people in charge.
The above is very nicely written and I agree with most of it. It's too bad that the person who placed it here is too cowardly to reveal their indentity or to at least attribute it to the person who wrote it - Anne over at her blog, http://www.diggindirt.blogspot.com/
Jeez, folks. Are you too weasily and irresponsible to even give proper credit to those you agree with?
Ann with no E. Sorry.
http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/news/060302_NW_trash.html
Before the city had the wonderful garbage trucks that Mayor Overton bought the recycling pick up was contracted out. I beleive that Rumpke had that contract.
My question is, if the city would make the investment in the kind of garbage trucks they had before (packers?) how would they do recyling? And, would there be an additional fee for the recycling as well as an increase in the fee for garbage collection? I think it was somewhere between $4 and $6 a month but that was several years ago before gas prices went up.
While there are people who I am sure can easily afford to pay more for garbage pick up and would probably not miss $10 or so more a month it is worth noting that in the last census New Albany had a higher than average population of both elderly widows and single mothers. These are two large groups of people who might very easily feel the pinch from another $10 a month.
So if it was just me it would be an easy decision to pay more but is it fair for me to make that decision for my elderly neighbor who is on a fixed income or the woman down the street who has 3 kids to support on one income?
The idea of contracting out the garbage pick up is not a new one. Lots of people have been talking about it. Didn't it come up at a city council meeting as an option that should be considered before a decison was made to buy new trucks? It has been discussed before on the blogs and advocated by those of you who have been complaining about their garbage service. So why is everyone pretending to be surprised?
And, if the mayor had just come out with a garbage increase would you really be so willing to pay it?
Why doesn't Floyd County contract out the inspection process for building and electricial?
http://www.indygov.org/eGov/City/DPW/Residential/Trash/home.htm
http://www.loukymetro.org/Department/WasteManagement/default.asp
http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/pubsrv/pages/-4159-/
http://www.floydcounty.in.gov/solid_waste.asp
So Anonymous, what's your point?
Louisville only has city provided garbage pick up in the Urban Services District, Indy uses private contractors, Cincy doesn't really say whether they use contractors or not.
The original post for this thread is pasted below.
The residents of New Albany will soon be confronted with a tough question; it's actually a series of tough questions, and there are no simple answers.
Ideology shouldn't be part of the process. Sympathy shouldn't be part of the process. Personal likes and dislikes shouldn't be part of the process. And party affiliation shouldn't come into play.
Perhaps as many as two-thirds of the city's sanitation workers are going off the city's payroll. While it's technically a layoff, all of them have been offered immediate employment by the city's new private contractor for residential waste removal.
Make no mistake about it, I know it's a jolt. Changing jobs is stressful. Heck, even changing offices is stressful. You have to get used to new rules, new surroundings, new supervisors, and new expectations. But it needn't be a disaster.
Will the new job offer higher pay? Lower benefits? Better hours?
Will some of the workers be unable to pass the pre-employment screening with Industrial Disposal?
I can't answer these questions. But it's hard to compare these layoffs to the 250 layoffs at the Ford plant in Louisville, or the shutdown of Tower in Harrison County. For the most part, these city workers won't miss a single paycheck. So to cast this as a brutal dismissal of loyal workers is disingenous.
It would also be disingenuous to pretend it doesn't hurt. I have no idea if the city has a severance package beyond unemployment. Presumably, termination benefits are addressed in the collective bargaining agreement; presumably the union negotiated for benefits or bargained them away in exchange for some other nugget.
So here is the question: Will New Albanians accept an increase in their waste/recycling bill of over 50%? That's a new bill totaling $21 a month. It applies whether you have a job or are retired. There's nothing progressive about this user fee/tax. Rich and poor pay the same rate.
We could stick with the way it has been done. We could continue to lose money, but draw from the reserves in the sewer fund to make up the difference. But what does the sewer board think about that?
Larry Kochert, ex-officio sewer board member and city council member for the 4th district, says that has to stop. There is a growing consensus that we must maintain and continually upgrade the system so we don't make the same mistakes we made in the latter part of the 20th Century. Those sewer bills are intended to keep the sewer system running.
We'd still have the lousy deal on the garbage trucks. We'd still be losing money (and service) every time they rolled. We'd still have the expensive lease payments. And we'd still have to buy new trucks after we got out from under those leases.
So here's the deal: If it's critically important to you who writes the paychecks for the laid-off city sanitation workers, call your council member and beg him to raise your garbage rates by more than $7 a month. Mayor Garner doesn't think you'll do that. He certainly won't propose it. But I suppose if a strong majority of the city demands a rate increase, he'd accede to that majority's wishes.
I think James Garner was in a tough situation. His answer to the tough question was that city residents wouldn't tolerate a rate increase of more than 50%.
So, who wins and who loses? Who benefits from this new arrangement? Who suffers?
THE SUFFERERS
1. (Potentially) As many as 20 current sanitation workers and their families. This weekend, especially, must be gloomy. A cartload of stress was just dumped on them. It will increase. A new job with ID will relieve some of that, but not all.
2. The AFSCME (union), which loses members, and the shop steward.
3. The concept of public works being done by city workers.
4. (Potentially) Residents who've come to rely on city workers to not only pick up their garbage, but to cart it to the curb and put the bins back.
5. (and least important) James Garner, whose stress level is highest and whose political career is on the line. Garner clearly agonized over this situation and didn't make the decision lightly. He's sympathetic to the disruption in the workers' lives. And he's apparently willing to be accountable at election time.
...let me know who I've overlooked.
THE BENEFICIARIES
1. Residents and ratepayers.
There will be no rate increase to make up the deficit in the sanitation fund.
The sewer fund reserves should enable that board to hold rates down, accelerate the maintenance schedule, or both.
The calving off of experienced sanitation workers to form a strike team for public (instead of private) sanitation needs is perhaps the most overlooked "golden apple" in this situation. The "old" reliable packers will be used to go after illegal dumping and alley and street cleanup. Those of us who espouse the "Clean Up New Albany" theme may just well have been heard. Garner insists that this strike team will, in fact, clean up New Albany.
The workers transferred from public to private employment may discover greater job security with ID. The city budget is going to be in crisis for a decade until voters get a grip on the consequences of Gov. Daniels' dump-back on the cities. Private waste hauling is still a growth industry. And for the short term, these workers will be highly valuable to the new contractor.
With the possible exception of some lack of enthusiasm for recycling, I've never heard a bad word about these workers. They are courteous and hard-working. You never hear about loose trash after pick-ups. You never hear about sanitation workers lollygagging or sandbagging. They've done a pretty good job given the equipment and budget they've had to deal with.
Now, these workers will have the right tools to do the job. It's likely they'll be working the same streets and alleys as before.
The city immediately stanches the blood flow from lease expenses and maintenance expenses on equipment that has become an albatross. The risks of fuel-cost increases will be shifted to a contractor, allowing for better planning and more accurate budgeting.
I did have one friend, a union guy, whose immediate sympathies were for his brothers and sisters, who reacted bitterly at the news. Although I've never had the privilege of being represented by a union, my own politics are firmly pro-union, and my own first reaction was, if not bitter, at least opposed to the idea.
Then I saw the numbers. I heard $250,000 and then $300,000. When I heard $700,000, I thought someone was exaggerating. The actual red ink was $900,000 last year and may be that much this year, too, unless the problem is fixed. That's a hell of a lot of money to pay just to preserve the idea of public works done by city employees, especially if no jobs are actually lost. Is ID a union company? Do they pay union wages? I don't know the answer to that, but under these circumstances, we could pay each laid-off worker $50,000 a year to wave at passersby and still contract out the waste hauling.
Instead, the negotiations stipulate that all the laid-off employees, if qualified, will get jobs with ID. If they aren't qualified, why is the city employing them in the first place?
James Garner has been accused of rewarding his friends. I don't know whether you consider a city job a reward, but Garner no longer has those jobs to give out. That doesn't sound like he's power-hungry to me, or using city services to give out patronage jobs. But he has solved a crushing city problem, a budget nightmare, and kept a campaign promise, all the while protecting the incomes of a key constituency.
I don't blame them for fighting it. It's easy to be fearful of the unknown. I earnestly hope that the consequences aren't as severe as these workers and their allies fear. It may turn out that the mayor is a bigger ally to them than they believe today.
---------------------------
One last note, for now. My union friend has somehow connected these operational savings with the capital expenditure designated for Scribner Place. In government fund accounting, it doesn't work that way. The savings are going back to the sewer fund, not to the Scribner Place redevelopment project. Believe it or not, I don't think Scribner Place is that high on the mayor's daily agenda. Yeah, it's important, but it's probably about number eight on the mayor's to-do list. Delivering city services effectively and within budget is his job. Scribner Place is but a small piece of what he was elected to do.
Did anyone read the other proposals presented at the Board of Works meeting? Were there any other options presented that addressed the truck issue, and allowed the sanitation employees to keep their jobs? Is this really the best deal?
Aren't the submitted proposals available for the public? Wasn't there a better option? One that addressed trucks and retaining the current employees?
Privatization of the government workers is nothing new. I know I have been through it.
In 1996, the Navy Department decided to privatize Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville. I had 18 years in under the civil service retirement program, they handed me a check for the amount I had paid in for those 18 years, not one dimes interest.
I walked out on Friday my last day of civil service and walked back in on Monday with the private company that had taken over the facility. Same desk, same job, same pay only difference was I know had 18 years seniority with a company and had not a dime in the 401k. No one here lost a job, even the union guys kept their jobs!
I hate to see the city privatize sanitation, but the bleeding has to stop. All the crazies on another blog keep saying run the city like a business, well this mayor is, and this is just one part of what business do when they have a division that is not turning a profit. They sever the bleeding division to make the whole company well!
Glad to see your allowing post now Randy, at least with this blog there will be some decorum and professionalism!
OOPs! I spoke to soon!
I see your allowing anonymus comments!
ARE YOU NUTS! :-)
To whomever put the links up about different cities and their garbage situation, please be kind enough to put your name on Randy's blog. There has been enough termoil on here for this week.
Messer gets my nod. Best of luck on a job that will require some backbone and a lot of writers cramps.
New Albany should have its own judge anyway. Without one, a lot of the fees collected from tickets go to the state.
I don't imagine collecting state donations provides the police with much motivation.
If the city tried to create a new position, though, you can be sure there'd be a backlash.
I don't like seeing public jobs privatized. It's a shame that more people don't realize that spending a little money can sometimes lead to additional revenue streams that would enable us to save those jobs.
I think the sanitation department could even create some revenue for themselves if they were allowed to make some changes. They provide services beyond household garbage pick up that they don't charge for.
If they were allowed to charge for those services, sell scrap metal, etc, it would help. It certainly wouldn't be enough to make up anywhere near $900K, but it would be a step in the right direction.
Admittedly I do not have a dog in this fight. I do feel I can add some facts as an experienced ID customer. As a county resident I have my garbage pick-up through ID. I do not intend to detract from the praise of the New Albany sanitation workers but my experience with ID's workers has always been positive. They frequently pick up more garbage than we are technically allowed. (which on the holidays can be quite a lot) We have the same type of garbage cans as New Albany so I doubt that there will be any need for a change.
I am a union wife and a die-hard union supporter under most circumstances. I also know that New Albany residents (in general) will scream bloody murder if their rates go up. Anybody remember Chas Hunter's administration and the relatively small increase in the sanitation fee? I heard more that one person say that they were voting against him for that reason and nothing more. I do not think that reason had any basis for this decision but for those of you who say that, "I will pay what ever it takes to save these jobs," you do not speak for the majority of voters in your city if history is any indicator.
I apologize for the extremely long post but enough people asked so here it is:
IC 33-35-1-1 Authority to establish or abolish; election of judge; notice
Chapter 1. Establishment; Election of Judges
Sec. 1. (a) During every fourth year after 1986, a second or third class city or a town may by ordinance establish or abolish a city or town court. An ordinance to establish a city or town court must be adopted not less than one (1) year before the judge's term would begin under section 3 of this chapter.
(b) The judge for a court established under subsection (a) shall be elected under IC 3-10-6 or IC 3-10-7 at the municipal election in November 1987 and every four (4) years thereafter.
(c) A court established under subsection (a) comes into existence on January 1 of the year following the year in which a judge is elected to serve in that court.
(d) A city or town court in existence on January 1, 1986, may continue in operation until it is abolished by ordinance.
(e) A city or town that establishes or abolishes a court under this section shall give notice of its action to the division of state court administration of the office of judicial administration under IC 33-24-6.
IC 33-35-2-1 Judge of city or town court; powers and duties; special judge
Chapter 2. Judge's Powers and Jurisdiction
Sec. 1. (a) A judge of a city or town court:
(1) may adopt rules for conducting the business of the court;
(2) has all powers incident to a court of record in relation to:
(A) the attendance of witnesses;
(B) the punishment of contempts;
(C) the enforcement of its orders; and
(D) the issuance of commissions for taking depositions in cases pending in the court;
(3) may administer oaths; and
(4) may give all necessary certificates for the authentication of the records and proceedings of the court.
(b) If the judge is temporarily absent or unable to act, the judge shall appoint a reputable practicing attorney to preside in the judge's absence as special judge. The special judge:
(1) has all the powers and rights; and
(2) shall perform all the duties; of the judge of the court as fully as the regular judge appointing the special judge.
IC 33-35-2-3 City court; jurisdiction over crimes, infractions, and violations
Chapter 2. Judge's Powers and Jurisdiction
Sec. 3. A city court has the following jurisdiction over crimes, infractions, and ordinance violations:
(1) Jurisdiction of all violations of the ordinances of the city.
(2) Jurisdiction of all misdemeanors and all infractions.
IC 33-35-2-8 Town courts
Chapter 2. Judge's Powers and Jurisdiction
Sec. 8. (a) A town court has exclusive jurisdiction of all violations of the ordinances of the town.
(b) A town court also has jurisdiction of all misdemeanors and all infractions.
IC 33-35-3-6 Prosecuting attorney or city attorney; prosecutions in city court
Chapter 3. Personnel; Expenses; Costs
Sec. 6. (a) The prosecuting attorney of the judicial circuit in which the city is located shall prosecute all cases in a city court for violation of statutes.
(b) The city attorney shall prosecute all cases of city ordinance violations.
IC 33-35-4-2 Compensation of judges
Chapter 4. Court Sessions; Compensation; Restrictions on Activities of Judges
Sec. 2. (a) Special judges of a city court are entitled to the compensation allowed special judges in the circuit court, to be paid out of the city treasury on the certificate of the regular judge and the warrant of the city controller or clerk-treasurer.
(b) A city court judge may not receive any fees or compensation other than the judge's salary, as established under subsection (e).
(c) A city court judge of each of the three (3) cities having the largest populations in a county having a population of more than four hundred thousand (400,000) but less than seven hundred thousand (700,000) is entitled to receive, for additional services that this article requires to be performed, three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500) per year in addition to the salary otherwise provided. The fiscal body of the city shall appropriate the money necessary to pay the additional compensation.
(d) A town court judge is entitled to receive the compensation that is prescribed by the fiscal body of the town.
(e) A city court judge is entitled to receive compensation that is prescribed by the fiscal body of the city.
IC 33-35-5-3 City court; warrants or other processes
Chapter 5. Records; Procedures; Practices
Sec. 3. All warrants or other processes issued by the city court must be:
(1) directed to the chief of police of the city or any person specially deputized by the city court; and
(2) executed, served, and returned by the chief, by any police officer of the city, or by the specially deputized person. The members of the police force of the city shall cause all persons arrested by the police force for a violation of any law to be taken before the city court for trial or examination.
There is a lot more but this is a start. Please remember that you have to fund this Judge at a rate that qualified lawyers will be willing to accept.
FYI,
Thanks for the information. Perhaps it's contained in the part of the guidleines you didn't post, but I didn't see anything explaining that the judge had to be an attorney.
I know when some local towns have held elections for a judge position, some of the candidates weren't attorneys. I'm not necessarily suggesting that someone with less legal experience would be a good thing, but it might be a way to avoid higher costs.
Also, do you know if all ordinance violations would have to be handled by a city court or if the city could specify certain types of violations?
That could affect how "qualified" the person may need to be.
BREAKING NEWS: The New Albany Board of Public Works & Safety today nominated Jack Messer to serve as the city's full-time ordinance enforcement officer. Many had thought a uniformed officer would be the best choice. Messer, an NAPD officer and a member of the city council, will be released from his police department duties to take on this daunting task if the nomination is approved. And, no, Jack won't be drawing two salaries, as some have declared. Jack remains a sworn officer, but his salary would now be paid from the OEO appropriation.
The discussion on the city's decision to partner with Industrial Disposal has been fruitful, so I'm not going to break the flow.
Please continue to discuss, debate, offer links or alternative solutions. I've heard a few, though none have yet been compelling.
If you get a chance, pick up a copy of The Tribune. Their lead editorial on Tuesday, July 26, is newsy and opinionated, and in favor of the fix proposed by Mayor Garner.
I've cut and pasted the original commentary as a subcomment at the end of the previous post down below, keeping the continuing thread. You might want to try this "permalink" to get to that thread: http://volunteerhoosier.blogspot.com/2005/07/tough-questions.html#comments
For a little fun, try this link. I enjoyed it.
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2005/7/14seely.html and this
ALTHOUGH I LIKE A GOOD GEORGE W. BUSH JOKE AS MUCH AS THE NEXT GUY, SOME OF THEM SEEM GRATUITOUS AND MEAN-SPIRITED
Good point Bluegill:
IC 33-35-1-4 City court judge; eligibility
Chapter 1. Establishment; Election of Judges
Sec. 4. To be eligible to hold the office of city court judge, as provided by Article 6, Section 6, of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, the judge must be a resident of the city during the term of office or the office becomes vacant.
Sorry about the selective information. I know all4word would not be one of those bloggers to complain about too much information but there is really a lot of statutes covering this area. I will try to answer your questions.
The court's enforcement of the laws are not put in place to trip up the avergage person. The upper courts have interpreted the meaning of certain terms. Understanding those interpretations are the majority of the training that lawyers get in law school. It may seem like semantics but if courts have consistently held that a certain term in an agreement means a particular thing, lawyers can have confidence in its usage. A non-lawyer may rule according to his (or her) belief of what is meant but get overturned on appeal. This is not to trip up the unexpected but to establish a uniform understanding of terms in the law.
"...there are..." Sorry about the grammer. It's late. Keep up the good work!
"Also, you definitely DO want an attorney in that position...” I'm glad to see the career placement office at Brandeis is doing its job well. ;-}
In all seriousness, Brandon, your point is well taken. I'm not sure that having a law degree necessarily makes one less susceptible to political pressure but at least a trained professional would know when they were being bamboozled.
FYI's points about terminology and precedent are good ones as well. Thanks again for the information FYI.
I guess I'm thinking of the position as more of a low key, part-time job-- just someone with some nuts and bolts know-how who could handle routine matters and yet create a revenue stream.
It might be a good opportunity for a young attorney who just hung his or her shingle out as a means of generating some guaranteed income or even a more experienced paralegal. On the flip side, an older attorney may enjoy the role of public servant after years of long hours.
This is a very educational discussion. A Municipal court is an obvious and needed evolution for our city.
Back to the current OEO ordinance -I am not as familiar with it as I should be. Can anyone give me a high-level flow of how the process will work?
The Officer will find a violation and then what? Is there a warning issued? A citation? Is there a defined appeal process? My concern is that we are setting this Officer up for failure if the backend process for enforcement is not strong.
Ted, the real measure of whether or not this city council is serious will come when, after the 5-month demonstration project, they are willing to do what it takes to make it meaningful and robust.
I know Mr. Messer's goal is to show his fellow officers that the city is serious about ordinance enforcement. Once those officers see that the city is serious, they will begin to report, and ultimately issue citations under existing codes.
A big problem is in collections. The office of the city clerk is being starved of money for staff. I am convinced that the violations bureau as it currently exists could be self-funding if the council would allow the clerk's office to actually collect fines.
There seems to be a question of whether the council is doing this willfully or negligently. A public discussion of the constraints placed on the collection effort would be enlightening. Then the council could explain why they have ordinances on the books, but are unwilling to enforce them.
As for violations on properties across the city, we have to question whether the council is serious about enforcement. It is universally believed that a new ordinance enforcement officer is going to have a gargantuan task. Naming Jack Messer as the interim OEO goes a long way toward removing those handicaps, but it's still going to tough until the city council is persuaded that their appropriations will in fact create enough collections to fund the operation on an ongoing basis.
If they don't or won't, then we have to question who it is they are serving. The slumlords? The illegal dumpers? If we have an OEO in name only, we have to let it be known we are not fooled.
Imagine this: While the OEO is proactively searching out the violators, who will be there to take complaints?
The process is administrative and CFP has been working on a process that would work, while still preserving room for negotiated settlement of issues before the issuance of citations. But as I understand it, there isn't even a process for filing a complaint, unless you count a Tuesday morning Board of Public Works and Safety meeting.
I don't know if a blog is the place to lay out the details. That's better left to a brainstorming session face-to-face. But if you have ideas for procedures, toss them out. Maybe others will see weaknesses or unintended consequences to a particular process.
Here is the procedure on the books for enforcing public nuisence violations.
City of New Albany, IN
Code of Ordinances
§ 130.32 ENFORCEMENT.
(A) The New Albany Police Department shall issue citations to individuals exhibiting nuisance behavior. All Such offenders shall be cited into the Floyd County Court.
(B) During the City Attorney's prosecution of said citation he shall determine whether the nuisance behavior occurred upon real estate owned by a person other that the person to whom the citation was issued. Within ten days after the City Attorney holds an initial conference on a citation, he shall send notice of the citation to the owner of the real estate upon which the nuisance behavior occurred.
(C) A legal or equitable owner of real estate is deemed to have knowledge of such nuisance behavior upon receipt of the notice required herein. For the purposes of this subchapter, an owner of real estate is defined as any person who alone, or jointly, or severally with others is reflected as the owner of record in the office of the Floyd County Auditor.
(D) The New Albany Board of Works and Safety shall declare any real estate a public nuisance if it finds, after written notice to the owner and a hearing held not less than ten days after the owner's receipt of notice, that nuisance behavior has been cited by the New Albany Police at that locations more than three times in any six month period. The owner may defend against such a public nuisance finding by showing that the Floyd County court found that the alleged nuisance behavior did not occur. The City Attorney shall notify the owner in writing of the Board's determination.
§ 130.33 FINES.
(A) An individual who violates this subchapter by exhibiting nuisance behavior shall be cited into the Floyd County Court by the Police Department and be assessed the following fines:
(1) First offense: $25 plus court costs.
(2) Second offense: $50 plus court costs.
(3) Third and subsequent offenses: $100 plus court costs.
(B) The Board of Public Works and Safety shall assess the following fines against any owner whose property has been declared a public nuisance pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter:
(1) First time property is declared a public nuisance: $50 plus court costs.
(2) Second and al subsequent offenses: $100 plus court costs.
I'm not clear on why the Board of Works has to make a determination and impose a fine if the Floyd County Court already has the authority.
I think we could benefit from a simplified process and more zeros.
According to the books, it could easily take a couple hundred bucks of labor to collect $25.
There's only one New Albanian (look for the union label).
Geez, I go out of town for a week and all hell breaks loose.
Time to check the e-mail for the behind-the-scenes stories ...
Post a Comment
<< Home