Auburn Common Council

[tdl_auburn]

I have been reviewing the Common Council meetings over the past few weeks by reading the minutes and watching the video provided on the Auburn website. Though it is very difficult to tell who is speaking in the video due to the camera positioning and format of the double screen, I have been able to at least listen in on the meetings.

Let me start by saying that I am conservative and my thoughts tend to align themselves with Republican agendas. No surprise, I'm sure, to anyone who's read my posts on these forums.

I see some decision making being done that concerns me. There seems to be a feeling among the council that nearly every decision that is brought before them must be made now. For example, on Nov. 16 there was a motion made to appoint Dave Stafford and Terry Rayle to the Auburn Redevelopment Commission for 2011. The issue I have here is that the council members did not take time to investigate these appointments to make educated decisions regarding whether or not to approve the appointments or not. The appropriate way to handle this would have been to make a motion to place it on the agenda for the next meeting. Councilman Mike Walter was the only member to object to making this decision without time to think on it. He didn't appreciate the "surprise vote," as he called it, and neither do I, frankly. Although I disagree with Mr. Walter's objection to shovel ready sights as long as these don't sit vacant for years...

The same was done in regard to the ordinance regarding synthetic marjuana. My own personal feeling on the matter...based on my limited knowledge...is that if it is similar to natural marijuana and marijuana is going to remain illegal, then the synthetic stuff should be as well. I'm not touching the issue of whether marijuana should be legalized...just saying if one is illegal, they both should be. However, instead of waiting for the public hearing, the council went ahead and made decisions before even giving the public a chance to speak about it at the hearing (which was scheduled for the following meeting). To my knowledge, none of the council members are formally educated in illegal narcotics beyond what one or two might have learned in school. The proper thing to do would have been to wait until after the hearing to make decisions. Making them before is jumping the gun. These people were elected and are expected to make knowledeable decisions based on facts. Sometimes it seems like they make decisisons based more on personal opinions and facts do little to sway their view. Let me add that Councilman Walter had a similar object about voting too early.

I guess my complaint stems on this. Just because someone is in a hurry and makes a motion to vote on something doesn't mean it must immediately be seconded and voted on right that second. The way these council meetings go it often seems like a good old boys club where Councilman Mike Walter is not really a welcome member. His objections, concerns, or points are often immediately rejected by the rest of the council before he can hardly begin to share his thoughts. That is a mentality that is responsible for dividing our country.

To be blunt... the council members need to shut up and listen to what each other are saying and try to understand where people are coming from in their views. I don't like hearing a motion to vote for something where very little discussion is permitted and then it's seconded, approved, and the council moves on to the next subject. Just because you don't like someone elses arguement doens't mean you make a motion to vote knowing it will be seconded to silence the objecting council member. It's just railroading the opposition without giving it a chance to speak and that's wrong. The Mayor as the mediator should step in during these situations and say there has been a motion to vote on this issue but we need to hear out the objecting council member. Voting on Dave Stafford and Terry Rayle appointments to the Auburn Redevelopment Commission could have waited two weeks. We still have 6 weeks before the end of the year. I think that would have satisfied Council Mike Walter and prevented the disagreement that surfaced. Patience...

If a council meeting runs an hour, it runs an hour. Sometimes it feels like these meetings are rushed so the members can get home. If council members want to get home and don't want to take the time to do your job right, resign and let someone in who will take it more seriously. Discussion is not about winning arguments. It's about listening to each other and coming up with solutions that both sides can live with. It should not be about which side will prosper. That cheats the community.

[krazetrain]

If Auburn's Council is anything like Kendallville's, the issues are already decided prior to the open forum. It has been obvious, due to the lack of discussion on most matters. I stated last year in this forum,about Kendallville's CC , that I felt the OPEN DOOR LAW had been violated, or at least the spirit of the law, by having private meetings prior to the public meeting. My feeling is, that if the lawmakers are willing to fudge on existing laws, that it becomes easier and easier to do so again, when it behooves them. Whether or not you agree with Mike Walters , you will soon see that he tries to keep the workings of the Council above board. Good luck in dealing with the issues and keep us posted as Mike often does!

[HoosierHelen]

I do agree with your posting here, TDL. Complete discussion should be allowed before they rush their votes. That is what I love about Mike Walters. He understands the importance of this and also the need for our community to be informed and have a reasonable time to react before they make their votes.

We would all be better served if we had more representatives who were as diligent as Mike Walters is.

[Mike_Walter]

Thanks for the kind words about my efforts for transparency in local government. Over the years I've used the phrases "home by supper attitude" and "government by nasty surprise" to describe the way things work at City Hall. Most of the people who stumble into these positions see themselves as members of a corporate board. They don't think much in terms of governance. They think that their job is to let management do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't obviously commit malfeasance. If you have a problem with something, the way they think you should handle it is to go in and have a chat with the mayor and let him wheedle or intimidate you into agreement.

I'm obviously not part of the community of consensus that characterizes the council majority. Part of the reason is my own temperament. I'm cautious. I like to know details. Another reason is that I've studied government all my adult life. I think in terms of checks and balances, fiduciary duties, loyal opposition. A third reason is that I'm a Democrat, which has made me a perpetual outsider in my hometown. I have never been part of the club, have never wanted to be and don't ever expect to be. Finally, I know a bit of history...Auburn's as well as the bigger picture. I know that decisions benefit some people more than others and that what's good for one interest might not be good for the community as a whole.

But I'm starting to digress. Debate, if that's what you want to call it, always goes better when the council has an audience. Not just one or two curiousity seekers, but an audience of interested people who aren't afraid to offer their opinions and share their practical knowledge. Not every voice from the audience is the voice of the people. But an audience makes members sit up straighter, speak more carefully and act a little more attentive.

No, I wouldn't have voted to reconfirm Dave Stafford and Terry Rayle even if the vote had come six weeks later. I really and truly like Dave, and I think that Terry at least wants to make sure that procedures are correctly followed. But when the time comes to make a decision, they aren't to be found doing what I think ought to be done. What I wanted to do was to let them know in advance that I wouldn't support their reappointments and tell them why. Springing the appointments on me early denied me the opportunity to show that courtesy.

A final word about the "shovel-ready sites." I really and truly do not like the idea of government acting as somebody's real estate agent, and I like even less the idea of government subsidizing the basic costs of the sale of private property. However, if government is going to assume this risk because decision-makers think it serves the public interest, then there is still a fundamental fiduciary duty to taxpayers to require the repayment of the sums invested if and when the property is sold. The failure of the council and the redevelopment commission to see to this fundamental responsibility is absolutely unbelievable; and I do not think that it is any kind of a stretch to attribute the failure directly to Mayor Yoder's being one of the property owners who is benefiting from this careless use of public funds.

[tdl_auburn]

A final word about the "shovel-ready sites." I really and truly do not like the idea of government acting as somebody's real estate agent, and I like even less the idea of government subsidizing the basic costs of the sale of private property. However, if government is going to assume this risk because decision-makers think it serves the public interest, then there is still a fundamental fiduciary duty to taxpayers to require the repayment of the sums invested if and when the property is sold. The failure of the council and the redevelopment commission to see to this fundamental responsibility is absolutely unbelievable; and I do not think that it is any kind of a stretch to attribute the failure directly to Mayor Yoder's being one of the property owners who is benefiting from this careless use of public funds.

I understand the concern now. I hadn't thought about these properties being 'private property.' For some reason, in my mind, I was thinking of these properties as belonging to the city. And it's funny how we conservatives want less government, yet seem to be the ones backing the use of city funds for "shovel ready" properties on land owned by private citizens. I never liked the idea of money being spent on making something "shovel ready" and afterward the property sits for months or years without occupantcy. It reminds of how assembly plants avoid purchasing too many parts to avoid having things sit on shelves without being used. If it's on the shelf, not being assembled it's stagnant money and profit out the window. Spending money for shovel ready property that isn't in the process of being sold is extremely wasteful and becomes stagnant money that isn't earning any kind of return on its investment.

I see a lot of potential for Auburn to grow but it feels like it's stuck on ifs and maybes. Auburn is "Home of the Classics." So why aren't we building on THAT theme? Where's the 50's theme burger joint with the turning vinyle record sign on the roof? Where's the classic, vintage patrol car on display? During the Dusemburg Festival dress the Auburn Police department in the old 1930's uniforms. Where's the fun and imagination that would draw people here. Why aren't we giving much attention to tourism? Why are spending money on ugly painted statues of people dancing that have nothing to do with being "Home of the Classics?" Why is our arts council focusing so much on copper statues and nothing about building an auditorium in Auburn that would draw people from around NE Indiana and give our local business more customers. When people go to the theatre or concerts they generally eat out or shop. Where's the "Dusemburg Center for the Fine Arts?" Want a bronze statue? Put a bronze Dusemburg in the lobby of the auditorium above a water fountain. My turn to digress. Auburn needs a little imagination. Our youths are moving away, not staying here. Why? There's no future for them here. Nothing for them to take pride in.