Reflections

I have spent the last few weeks since the Fishers City Council election reflecting on the results of that election, and lessons to be learned from it.  In no particular order, here are some of them.

• I got votes from about 40% of those who voted, a very respectable showing for a Democrat. But despite my fiscal conservatism on local financial issues, some people only vote for Republicans, period, and paid too little attention to the very real financial issues related to our overuse of TIF financing and rapidly rising debt.  
• It is exhausting to be a candidate, physically and mentally.  That is doubly true when you are the only candidate of your party on the ballot. 
• Voter turnout in non-Presidential elections, especially for city offices, is nothing short of horrible, and it has been getting worse.  I have heard all sorts of ideas about why this is so, including blaming the one-party nature of local politics to voters simply not understanding why local government is important. I will do my small part about the problem, but even my Republican friends don't understand this. Is it apathy, futility, ignorance of local government, or something else? 
• Democratic Party involvement is probably part of the solution, but the problem there is two-fold, both at the bottom where too few people want to do the hard grassroots work to make it happen, and at the top, where there is a lack of resources, training, communication, and involvement. If Democrats could somehow get their act together, it would drive more citizen involvement in the process. 
• As an alternative to the comment above, I could support non-partisan local elections for mayors and city councils. If there is a Republican or a Democratic position on most local issues, I have yet to see it. It's hard to put a party label on a road construction project. And the stereotype about Democrats being big spenders is just false.  In Hamilton County, the big spenders are all Republicans. But not all of them support that. 
• Both Democrats and Republicans need to learn to talk to each other in a civil manner and be able to work together for common cause. CityYes was a great example of how citizens could put aside party label for a shared vision. 
• Fishers still needs to pass a human rights ordinance. I have no faith in the State doing this right any time soon.
• Fishers also needs to pass a version of an ethics ordinance and campaign finance reform to limit special interests who do business with the City from essentially buying access to city government via large campaign donations. 

I will continue to speak out and write about matters that concern me.  Although I do not expect to write any more posts for this blog, please follow my Hamilton County Politics blog, which also posts to Facebook and Twitter. Feel free to follow it, and me.  Thanks to everyone who supported and worked for me, words cannot express how much I appreciate it. 

Rising Debt in Fishers

Recently at the City Council's budget hearing, I was one of only two citizens who actually got up and spoke or asked questions about the Mayor's $69 million dollar budget plan for 2016. Even the Council seemed disinclined to ask any questions, even though they are the fiscal body for the City.

But I asked tough questions, as I have been doing for several years now, primarily aimed at Fishers' rising debt.  Here are some highlights, or lowlights, depending on your viewpoint.

• Fishers total debt is $274 million, up from about $70 million in 2008. 
• Of that total debt, over $150 million is in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) debt, the form of corporate welfare that keeps our tax base from actually growing and requires non-TIF homeowners and businesses to subsidize core services like police and fire for the TIF areas.
• Of the $69 million in spending for 2016, over $12 million is for debt payments, roughly 17% of the total. 

As I was making my remarks, the Council President actually tried to cut me off because he does not want the word to get out about these facts. After my remarks, he, the Mayor, and other Council members tried to defend this as being "fiscally conservative".  I am sorry, but if that kind of debt is "fiscally conservative", then that term is meaningless. 

Do you want pretend fiscal conservatives to continue to run everything without someone who will stand up, ask the hard questions, and say "Wait one minute!"?  If you are troubled by that, then please support me on November 3rd.

Filing for City Council at Large

I am pleased to announce that I have filed my paperwork to be a candidate for Fishers City Council at Large for the 2015 election.

I hope to bring diversity to the City Council, a diversity of opinion and background and political perspective that is missing in our local government.  Fishers is likely the most diverse of all of the communities in Hamilton County, drawing people not just from Indiana like myself, but from all over our country, and indeed, from all over the world. Increasingly, they do not reflect the one-party domination of local government, but have their own views and often do not identify with any particular political party.  I hope to give a voice to those who feel disenfranchised by local government,  Many are so disillusioned that they no longer even vote in local elections, a fact which is dangerous to good representative government.

As a father, a grandfather, an attorney for 37 years, and an activist in local politics outside of the mainstream, I can be that voice for those who do not feel that local government represents them, and all too often in the past, has not listened.  The biggest example of that is when the voters overwhelmingly agreed with me that Fishers should become Indiana's newest city, which all but one person in local government opposed.

I listen to only one voice, the voice of the people of Fishers.  I ask for your support in this venture. Please go to my website, www.GregPurvis.com, for more information, to sign up for my mailing list, or to make a donation, or even to contact me with questions, or offers of support.

The First Fishers City Council Election

Tomorrow, November 4, 2014, the voters of Fishers will go to the polls to elect their very first CITY council.  This has been a long time coming, and was over the determined opposition of those in Town Hall, who did everything possible to delay, obstruct, and defeat the City referendum which passed in 2012.

But tomorrow's election is only for a ONE year term. This only lasts until NEXT year, 2015, when Fishers goes on the regular municipal election cycle again and elects Mayor, City Clerk, and City Council for a full 4-year term.

Why is that?  A little history is in order.  CityYes was formed in 2008, with me as its first chair, to promote the change to a city.  In May 2010, the day before the primary, we submitted our petitions asking for the referendum to be held in the November 2010 general election.  But at that time, the Town Council had total control over when to schedule the referendum.  So what did they do?  They created a "merger" process to create a "fake city" with an unelected/appointed figurehead "mayor" and stalled the referenda (there were now two, one for the city, one for the "merger") to November 2012.

Remember the black on yellow "Don't Be Tricked" signs?  Well they worked, and the merger went down in flames, defeated nearly 2-1 and the City referendum passed by a healthy margin.  I am proud of the work I did with CityYes in making sure the will of the people was heard.

But if the referendum had passed in 2010, we would have had our first City election in 2011 for a full four year term and these races this year for mayor and council would not be happening.

So, if you don't like that, and NONE of the current council members supported the City referendum, then I ask for your vote tomorrow, for that and many other reasons.  Remember, I fought HARD for the will of the people to be heard, and I will continue to do so if elected to the City Council.

Remember, always remember....

DON'T BE TRICKED!

An Ethics Proposal

I have at various times written about the unseemly influence of those who receive government money from the Town of Fishers making campaign donations for the re-election of the incumbents who granted those contracts.  (See, "Is Fishers For Sale?" April 20, 2011, in my Hamilton County Politics blog).

Sadly, the current crop of incumbents learned the wrong lesson from their peers.  Several of the council incumbents formed and participated in a Political Action Committee (PAC) called the "Royal Tiger PAC", which promised donors inside information about what is happening in town government, of course in return for donations.   The donors to that PAC ended up being a veritable "Who's Who" of insiders in Fishers.

This was written about in scalding terms by Republican blogger Paul Ogden, in his Ogden on Politics blog in April 2014.  Ogden's post is here:  http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2014/04/is-3500-price-of-political-influence-in.html.  Ogden referred to this as "unseemly", which it certainly is, at a minimum.

Not only was Pete Peterson, the Fishers Council's vice-president and treasurer of the Hamilton County Republican Party, a central figure in this, but also Fishers Council President John Weingardt (my opponent), new Fishers Council member Eric Moeller, and defeated County Council candidate Andrew Dollard, who after the primary was arrested in a pill-peddling scheme.  (The lawyer in me notes the case is pending, and Dollard is entitled to the presumption of innocence,)  Royal Tiger has since been disbanded over the furor over what seems to be yet another instance of "pay to play" politics in Hamilton County.

Now, nothing about this is APPARENTLY illegal, although it would not take much for it to be illegal.  The town's vendors who make such donations clearly are expecting to get their money back somehow.  But to make it a "quid pro quo", such as "I will donate to your campaign $3500, and in return, you will vote for the contract that I want to build a new office building", would be a criminal offense.

Similarly, if someone were to have gone to a vendor, or group of them and said that they HAD to contribute to Royal Tiger or some other committee if they wanted to continue to get government contracts, that too would be criminal.  But as of yet, no one has stepped up with any details of such pressure, perhaps because if they DID, they would be cut out of the lucrative government contracts.

The "appearance of impropriety" can be as bad as the improper behavior itself. It corrupts the public's faith in government by making it appear that the People's Government is for sale to special interests who make campaign contributions. It makes government contractors think they HAVE to support incumbents if they want to keep government business. And it blurs the line between "legal" and "illegal".

So, I have a proposal.  The U.S. Supreme Court has made decisions that say that in some cases, campaign contributions cannot be restricted.  So what I propose is to give those who want government money a choice.  I propose a Fishers ordinance to prohibit the giving of a Fishers government contract, or any other financial benefit including economic development incentives, to anyone who donates to a political candidate for Fishers' office.  And this is not an unusual restriction. The U.S. Government has prohibitions against Federal government contractors making campaign donations in a Federal election.  Several states and municipalities have either adopted or have considered a similar restriction.

Let's get the corporate welfare and cronyism out of our local politics.  I pledge that if elected, I will work with other members of the City Council, regardless of political party, to adopt such an ordinance, and let Fishers be an ethical example for the rest of the State of Indiana.

Censorship and Transparency

Recently, the issue of public comment and debate to fully-inform the public has been on my mind. A related term is "transparency", which might be thought of as openly discussing public issues and making those decisions after full debate in the light of public view.

Or so I thought.  Apparently my opponent does not agree.  Last week, after a comment of mine on the "Fishers Indiana Government" Facebook page was deleted by the town's PR person who runs that page, I challenged why they did that.  Apparently it was because it linked to this blog.  So it seems that candidates for public office in Fishers have fewer First Amendment rights than do other citizens.  And the comments were in support of the Sun King Brewery expansion to Fishers, save for my serious reservations about the TIF financing, so that was even odder.  But they allowed the comments without the link to the blog.

That seemed silly to me, even though annoying.  But the hits kept coming.  It was reported to me that comments by others on my opponents Facebook page were deleted, because he did not feel that Facebook was an appropriate place for discussion of issues.  It is public, accessed by thousands of Fishers residents, so why not?  If not there, then where?  And now ALL comments on his page seem to be gone.

Also last week, I publicly challenged my opponent to a series of debates prior to the November 4th election. I even emailed him.  Nearly a week went by, and no response. So I called John.  Despite our political and policy differences, we personally are on good terms. His reply essentially was no debates, except for those which might be hosted by the Hamilton County League of Women Voters and/or the Fishers Chamber of Commerce.  So I reached out to those groups.  Per Dan Canan, President of the Fishers Chamber, they are NOT planning on any candidate debates, despite a record number of council seats being contested in a general election (four).  I have not heard from the League yet.

SO.  No discussion of issues on my opponent's Facebook page.  Candidate censorship on the Town's Facebook page. Either zero or ONE debate for the 4 council seats among 10 candidates running.

Democracy depends on an open and vigorous discussion and debate of issues. My opponent seems determined not to defend his record before the public.  Perhaps he realizes just how many errors of judgment he has made on the council, and hopes the public will remain ignorant.

SO. I will do my best to spread the word. I ask every resident of Fishers to share this blog with your friends and neighbors, so that there will be at least SOME open discussion of issues. And contact my opponent and let him know that hiding behind a curtain of silence is bad politics and worse for democracy.

Welcome to my new campaign blog

I would like to welcome the readers of "Hamilton County Politics" and others to my new campaign blog, supporting my run for Fishers City Council.  I will devote this blog to issues surrounding this first race for the Fishers CITY Council, the things I like, as well as the things I disagree with.

My webpage is www.GregPurvis.com, and you can sign up for my email list, contact me, or even donate at that website.  I also comment extensively on Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/PurvisforFishers, and my posts there and here will be also posted on Twitter (@GregPurvis).

I make no secrets about my views.  I am open and outspoken, and not at all shy about sharing my thoughts and opinions.  I see this as admirable and desirable in a candidate for office. I hope you enjoy my posts, and recommend them to your friends and neighbors.

Greg Purvis
Candidate for Fishers City Council,
South-Central District