Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Principiis amicus

In case it has escaped anyone’s notice, I’m not a supporter of the recently floated idea that the first step in creating an effective ordinance enforcement regime is to hire a full-time city attorney.

I take issue with the contention that a functioning city court is an irrelevancy, too. In fact, the (re)creation of a city court is the drive mechanism that converts the energy (citations and inspections) into motive power (mitigation of the violations). Without a city court, the fuel will burn and the engine will race, but the gears will not engage and there will be “enforcement” in word, not in deed.

The incrementalist approach is a subtle form of co-optation. Those who hold the purse strings, and thus the reins of power, may yield ground in a strategic retreat (what my esteemed colleague calls a rear-guard action) and concede incremental approaches. If the instant citizen’s group has the persuasive ability or political muscle to achieve the increment, it also has the ability to advocate for a comprehensive solution. Why else would the opponents of ordinance enforcement yield unless the array of forces were able to demonstrate overwhelming sense and/or political power?

Bluegill, whose intellectual rigor I hold in the highest regard, scolds me for being “unhelpful” and “unfair.” I would characterize it another way. In challenging the accepted wisdom, I’ve elicited a spirited defense that otherwise might not have been heard this week. In all fairness, this defense has been mounted without defensiveness. However, good motives and fastidious process aren’t enough. There are indeed forces whose interests would be threatened by a city government with the resources to actually enforce ordinances. They are perfectly happy with things the way they are, and far more experienced at getting their way.

I believe it was Bluegill, again, who stated that New Albany has marketed itself well – to slumlords, that is.

So what is to be made of CM Coffey’s sudden interest in ordinance enforcement, coupled with his newfound zeal for beefing up the force complement of the NAPD? Have the scales suddenly fallen from Councilman Cappucino’s eyes? Has the senior of the Siamese Councilmen had a Road to Damascus moment wherein exposure to the good government ideals of the all-so-nonpolitical summiteers has caused him to see the light and to champion the hiring of a full-time city attorney?

You might guess my answer to that.

First of all, I don’t believe this council is willing to pay the price it will take to retain a qualified attorney who will forgo the fees generated by a part-time private practice. As much as I admire Paul Wheatley, he is a very young man and though appropriately educated and sufficiently seasoned, he is just beginning his career, and thus is available to work for the pittance this council and mayor felt they could pay for the economic development function. Would this council not pinch pennies and hire, say, a lawyer one year out of law school to serve as corporation counsel to a city of 38,000 souls?

But say they will pay what it takes. What does that accomplish? Friend Brandon says making the city attorney full-time will resolve the biggest of the problems, but offers no support for that assertion. Yes, he has been told that referrals for enforcement action sink into a black hole when sent to the city attorney’s office. But has Shane Gibson said that lack of hours is holding him back? Sincerely, has he?

I contend that the city law department, as currently organized, would be sufficient to handle the volume of enforcement actions if the supporting personnel and other resources were properly appropriated. The Gang of Four knows this, I believe. That is why Coffey is willing to play rope-a-dope with the summiteers. Give them what they say they want, hijack the idea so you can claim it as your own, and dance back to the paymasters to report that you’ve mollified the goo-goos. That’s my evaluation.

So, what’s my solution? Rough and dirty, this is it.

1) Add four clerks to the office of the City Clerk. If necessary, assign one of those to the controller’s office to meet statutory requirements. The sheer volume of work to write and send demand letters and citations supports this. But this would not be a new expense for the city government. It would be justified by increased collections. By one report, less than 40% of all citations are being collected, and that is a direct result of a council that refuses to give that office, and that individual, the resources to do her job.

2) Add three new ordinance enforcement officers to work with officer Badger. Maybe you make one a sworn police officer so that warrants can be served by an armed officer.

3) Increase the traffic division to a total of four people. Assign one of those to dig out the highly-secured vehicle ID and registration information for which access is restricted to sworn law enforcement personnel.

4) Write and pass the enabling legislation for a city court now. By law, such legislation must be passed by Dec. 31 of this year, elections held in 2007, and the court begins operations in January of 2008. By law, if we do not pass this now, we must wait until 2010, for a 2011 election, and a functioning court beginning in 2012. New Albany cannot wait six years for a court. The mere fact that CM Coffey preemptively announced his opposition to it last year adds, I believe, a sterling recommendation for this action. Our soon-to-be abogado y licensiado notwithstanding, a city court is the essential piece of the puzzle. Why?

5) To fund 1 through 4. That’s right. The net cost to the city of this enforcement regime is nil. It will require initial funding, but as the city begins to levy and collect fines, seizes and sells properties and vehicles, and cleans up the city, that appropriation will be rapidly offset. All of the above can be paid for out of the hides of the anti-social elements that have endangered this town for so many years.

Is that good enough for you, Bluegill? Fire away and pick it apart all you want. I won’t consider it unfair or unhelpful in the least.

6 comments:

All4Word said...

Briefly, for my friend John is demanding the floor, the CITY enforcement of speeding violations alone will pay for ALL of this. The amount collected on Spring Street alone could pay for every dime of this regime. Additional fines and fees could be remitted in a reverting fund if I.C. allows it. Ask one of your cop friends about why they don't cite more aggressively on city streets like Spring. Average speed=40, speed limit in front of my store=25.

Does $1.75 per ticket to the city sound right? And that's justified ONLY because it is the presumed cost of the 2-part carbonless citation itself. With a city court in place, I could earn the city $1 million in between sales transaction at the store.

And again, briefly, my understanding is that Mr. Gibson does NOT agree that a full-time city attorney is the answer.

All4Word said...

Oh, and thanks for the very reasonable response.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

I wrote a long response. Here're the Cliff's Notes:

You missed my point. This post, while relevant to the overall enforcement issue and appreciated, has nothing to do with what I said. In short, you could've simply added your suggestions to the conversation but instead used a bunch of loaded language and inaccurate assumptions to agitate.

Unity amongst intelligent activists is the only thing that will make any change, comprehensive or incremental, a reality. What happens if forum participants adopt and present all of your ideas and the Gang, quoting you, points out how easily played they are?

Deriding the forum isn't good strategy. Encouraging it to consider other viewpoints is.

All4Word said...

The city court can subsist on parking fines alone. That another city's court doesn't break even is that city's problem. It is not relevant to New Albany, where the relatively lenient enforcement regime already generates (on paper) enough to fund a city court.

As for the misimpression re: the city attorney, why haven't the participants demanded a retraction or written a letter to the editor clarifying the goals of the group? The public record stands uncorrected.

I pretty much know everyone who participated in the forum, Bluegill, and I know them to be in part canny, in part naive. It seems that naivete won in the early balloting, and continues to lead the race. I don't consider pointing that out to be derision. I already know that the researchers are discovering what I discovered last year and will be reporting intricacies that the group must address. Next Tuesday's meeting will undoubtedly be the most productive one yet.

But when the leadership of the group disinvites participants and conducts its affairs in secrecy, I object. Rather than crash the party, I blog. Sorry you don't care for my input or critique.

To the extent the group, wittingly or not, plays into the hands of the looters, I will continue to point that out. I believe clarity and credibility are what builds unity, not censoring voices that disagree.

If the driver of the bus ignores the "bridge out" sign, I don't think it is derisive to point that out, much less to erect the sign.

Rick Carmickle said...

Somewhere I remember hearing that at one time there was a city court. That it was done away with during the 70's.

It would be nice to know the reasons why, and who was behind the removal of the City Court.

Also, as far as the demolition fund goes, if it’s 60K in the red, why is it? What plan of action did the previous administration have when it came to removal of dilapidated houses. What legal hoops did it jump through to get permission to destroy these properties. It would seem that someone would know the procedure at hand.

I have to say, as far as that administration goes, getting rid of eye sores was one of the best things she accomplished. And before you get your pantyhose in a wad, I am not saying we need to tear down every vacant house in the city!

It would be nice though if some of the neighborhood associations could find funds, and ways to turn empty lots into small parks or such, instead of weed infested lots we will see all summer long.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

As you well knew before typing a word about it, and as both the Tribune and NAC have reported, the forum's conversation about code enforcement has evolved beyond a singular idea of a full-time city attorney and no calls for such have been made. Ignoring that to score a few verbal jabs lends itself to neither clarity nor credibility.

The majority of the forum group have conducted themselves in a manner deserving congratulations for not allowing conflicts between individual members to overwhelm the forum's focus on the common good. I hope that continues. Whether or not you personally are able to do the same is a matter for your own conscience and ego, not public discourse. For the forum's sake and yours, I hope you pull it off.