VIOLATION AND IGNORANCE OF THE LAW ARE NOT EXCUSES

THIS INFORMATION IS MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF CODE REVISION INDIANA LEGISLATIVE SERVICES AGENCY

FIRST -- THE FOLLOWING IS PART OF THE LEGAL ADVERTISED IN THE TRIBUNE OCTOBER 28 AND NOVEMBER 4, 2007 REGARDING RAISES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR 2008 AND REFERENCING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD TO CONSIDER THE SALARY ORDINANCE FOR 2008, FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS ACCORDING TO I.C. 36-4-7-2 (IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE I.C. CODE IN MIND).

I.C. 36-4-7-2
ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS; FIXING OF ANNUAL COMPENSATION
SEC. 2 (A) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, "COMPENSATION" MEANS THE TOTAL OF ALL MONEY PAID TO AN ELECTED CITY OFFICER FOR PERFORMING DUTIES AS A CITY OFFICER, REGARDLESS OF THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FROM WHICH THE MONEY IS PAID.

(B) THE CITY LEGISLATIVE BODY SHALL, BY ORDINANCE, FIX THE ANNUAL COMPENSATION OF ALL ELECTED CITY OFFICERS. THE ORDINANCE MUST BE PUBLISHED UNDER IC 5-3-1, WITH THE FIRST PUBLICATION AT LEAST THIRTY (30) DAYS BEFORE FINAL PASSAGE BY THE LEGISLATIVE BODY.

(C) THE COMPENSATION OF AN ELECTED CITY OFFICIAL MAY NOT BE CHANGED IN THE YEAR FOR WHICH IT IS FIXED, NOR MAY IT BE REDUCED BELOW THE AMOUNT FIXED FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR. As added by Acts 1980, P.L. 212, SEC. 3. Amended by Acts 1981, P.L. 17, SEC. 21; P.L. 15-1993, SEC 3.

THE FOLLOWING ARE PARTIAL MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 3, 2007 REFLECTING THE DISCUSSION OF RAISES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL:

A-07-33

MR. COFFEY STATED THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE RAISES FOR THE COUNCIL IN HERE BECAUSE THEY REQUESTED THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT A RAISE.

MRS. GARRY SAID THAT SHE IS GOING TO SPEAK UP FOR SOME OF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS SUCH AS THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK.

MR. COFFEY STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CITY CLERK GET A RAISE.

MR. GAHAN STATED THAT THEY DO NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE MAYOR'S SALARY AS WELL...

THAT BEING STATED AND ALL FACTS BEING IN ORDER LISTED ABOVE, WE, AS TAXPAYERS, WILL SIMPLY TAKE THIS TO THE STATE LEVEL AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

THUMB YOUR NOSES AT US AND ACT SO IRRESPONSIBLY? NOT WITH OUR MONIES. WHY CAN'T YOU SIMPLY DO IT THE RIGHT WAY? WE ALL UNDERSTAND THE RIGHT WAY IS THE HARDEST WAY, BUT GEE.

THANK YOU COUNCILMAN PRICE AND COUNCILMAN KOCHERT FOR VOTING AGAINST SAME AND FOLLOWING THE LAW OF THE STATE.

THE MAYOR RECEIVED A 17 PERCENT INCREASE AND THE CITY CLERK RECEIVED A 20 PERCENT INCREASE (CITING THE TRIBUNE).

THANK YOU COUNCILMAN KOCHERT AND COUNCILMAN SCHMIDT FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY. ME AND MINE DO APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICES, AND FRIENDSHIPS FORGED.

TO THE ANONYMOUS POSTER WHO ADVISED ME TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETING AND MAKE MY PROTESTS KNOWN THERE -- AGAIN, NOT NECESSARY. WE SIMPLY BUMP IT UP A LEVEL -- TO THE STATE; WE ALWAYS FIND SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO KEEP THEIR JOB AND DO THE RIGHT THING BY CITIZENS.

AS I ALSO ATTENDED THE SEWER BOARD MEETING THIS WEEK AND WAS HIGHLY FRUSTRATED BY EVENTS MENTIONED ON NEWALBANYEYESORES.BLOGSPOT.COM, I AGAIN APPROACHED THE BOARD ABOUT THE "HOUSE" (CONDOS) NOT ON SEWER AND WHETHER THE SEWER BOARD ATTORNEY EVER SENT A LETTER OUT. THERE WAS COMPLETE DENIAL IN THE ROOM; STATING EMC NEVER DETERMINED IF THAT HOUSE WAS ON OR NOT BECAUSE OF AN "UN COOPERATING" LANDLORD. THE EPA HAS SAID UNLESS IT IS DRAINING INTO A CREEK OR STREAM THEIR HANDS ARE TIED. IF THIS PROPERTY LIES IN A WATERSHED, I.E. FALL RUN CREEK, THE EPA WOULD BE INVOLVED.

THE SEWER BOARD TRIED TO SAY THEIR HANDS ARE TIED; BUT THERE IS A LAW ON THE BOOKS WHICH STATES (CITY LAW) THAT IF A SEWER MAIN COMES WITHIN SO MANY FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY -- YOU MUST CONNECT. OUR FAMILY HOPES EVERYONE MOVED HEAVEN AND EARTH TO HELP THIS FAMILY OUT.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL...AND AFTER THE HOLIDAYS; REMEMBER THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 27TH. PEACE.

NEW RAISES FOR ALL, AND IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BUDGET TIMES, ALAS

The most aggravating part, to me, trying to serve as a taxpayer advocate for all taxpayers, is the sheer greed and nerve of certain politicos.

The part really irking me is this jockeying for more monies for the Council members and our new incoming Mayor, all without public knowledge.

Guess this may be where I come in. At this time, the City Council makes $9,500.00 per year; but the President of the Council receives an additional $50.00 per month ($600.00 extra per year).

Budgets are not until the following year. If you, as elected officials, do not follow the budgetary processes -- why should you get any type of raise?

Maybe government budgeting has changed since I was involved in the Federal end -- BUT I DO NOT THINK SO.

If you wanted raises for one and all, it should have been in this past budget and if not, wait until the next budget process.

The word on the street are ($) dollar signs starting floating in front of a few of their eyes when they saw Jeff's officials' salaries.

The Council is talking from going from $9,500.00 per year to between $12,000.00 or $13,000.00 -- they haven't firmed that part up yet.

The Mayoral salary would like to be increased by some (hmmmm.....) up $8,900.00.

These are my views and opinions on same - just so no one mistakes who's views and opinions they are:

1. Past Budget time; show some restraint and wait until the Budget process, please.

2. Each elected official knew exactly how much money they would be making and I wonder why now it is just not enough without taking more from us?

3. What do you feel as a Council you have achieved in order to deserve such a large raise? Why not a simple 3% like everyone else? Yes, I know you only got 1% under Overton; 1% under Garner -- but I'm not buying into the I feel sorry for you routine.

4. Ditto with the Mayoral salary. Why now? Why not wait until the Budget process?

Just my questions and opinions -- like anyone every answers any type of public questions posed to them...

Peace

Gee, why do we KEEP HAVING TO ASK for the "rules" of order and proper government procedures? Irritating, I tell you, irritating.

Property Tax Reform Commission - Access to Public Documents

Senator Kinley's office provided the following link for the public perusal of some proposals put forth on the table for our possible voting on same. Simply the final report is 29 pages long from the Commission; it surely will take a few days to cut through that and the rest of things.

My interest laid not so much in streamlining government, as it did in the oversight and reasoning behind tax abatements and tax increment financing districts and the impacts to the General Fund (OUR GENERAL FUND, IN PARTICULAR).

The sight provided is for us : http://www.propertytaxreform.in.gov/ ; then you should click on View the Final Report.

Peace, NA.