JOINT WORKSHOP

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS-CITY COUNCIL

MAY 5, 2011

The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners and Common Council of the City of Evansville met in a joint workshop format on this 5^th day of May, 2011 at 5:40 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex for the purpose of addressing potential modifications to the Evansville-Vanderburgh County Plan of Reorganization.

President Winnecke: Okay, we’ll go ahead and get started. This is a little different setting and format. We thought this might be a little more conducive for the workshop that we hope that we intend to, the manner in which we needed to work through. The idea is for the Commissioners and the Council to go through the Reorganization Plan and have open discussion between us, because each body has to pass the identical plan in order for it to go to a referendum. So, we thought we would go, start with section one and go and meet for 60 to 90 minutes and kick around ideas and take notes about what the thoughts are of this, of these bodies. At one of our subsequent workshops, I would think we could insert the modifications that we’re discussing during the course of these meetings, and, of course, then we would reconvene our public hearing on June 30^th, as we’ve previously advertised. We do have microphones on the table, I understand that they are up as high as they can go. We are being televised, so, to the Commissioners and Council, please be sensitive to the paper shuffling on the table, and try to speak as loudly as we can so folks in the audience can hear as much as possible. I think, President Watts is at a school commitment tonight, so he could not be here, and Councilwoman Robinson told me that she could not be here tonight as well.

President Winnecke: So, having said that, I guess we’ll just start with section one.

Councilmember Adams: Do we have a quorum?

President Winnecke: They said we didn’t need one for this.

Councilmember Friend: The Clerk is going to call the roll.

President Winnecke: Okay, yeah great.

Councilmember McGinn: We have a quorum.

Councilmember Friend: We have six, we just need five.

President Winnecke: Okay, section one, the general provisions. Is there anybody that would like to start the discussion on that section?

Commissioner Abell: Well, I have a note here, under 1.2 where is says, in the parentheses, as defined in section one point something, I had written over it, was that a typographical error that somebody had picked up the night of....I don’t know why I wrote over that.

President Winnecke: In 1.2?

Councilmember McGinn: 1.7.

Commissioner Melcher: 1.7.

Councilmember McGinn: I think that was the correction that we all got.

Commissioner Abell: That’s was 1.7? Oh, okay.

Councilmember McGinn: We’re either all wrong, or we’re all correct.

President Winnecke: Article one, this is the General Provisions section.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, I mean, I’ll bring it up again for discussion if we want to talk about it, is 1.5, the partisan elections. We have an opportunity to eliminate some of the bickering that goes on with various aspects of government that are there for political consideration. Again, I think, I would like to consider either, it’s a non-partisan election or there is at least, you know, a provision where straight tickets in a local election can’t be voted so that we have, whether it’s smaller, it really makes no difference, but we will have a better informed electorate. You know, there’s still, at the State level and the National level, you know, to people who get in the business of politics, the advertising and that type of thing, the apparatus, their effect are still viable for the majority of the elections in the State. We’re starting fresh on this, I mean, why not consider something different where the electorate is at least better informed, at least have to turn the pages, if it’s not a straight ticket situation. Again, I mean, I believe that is should be, you know, a non-partisan situation. I know there are arguments for and against, but if we’re going to consider something new, I would like to try something new, something different. You know, I’ve done lots of reading, and I understand the arguments for and against. I know that they are there, but when I have met, and enough people have talked with me one on one, and we’re talking about numbers of Council and where the districts should be and that type of thing, there are people that are reading maps and they are looking at statistics. You know, people, well, just like with the redistricting that’s going on at the State level and the National level, people are trying to jockey lines around to put people of their party and their party and this type of thing, which is to sustain, their primary reason seems to be sustain something other than good government. I think if we can eliminate that, then we go back to the primary purpose for government, and, again, I don’t know whether anybody’s philosophy is different than mine, I mean, I believe government is to provide basic services to people. I mean, I’m the historian. I love history, and I know our government, and we started out by taking all of the power from the King of England, and then slowly giving it back to our government. The power belongs to the people. I believe in that premise. I don’t believe it belongs to political parties, and I don’t believe it should belong to political parties. I’m not being naive, I’m not being idealistic. I think I’m being practical in this situation, if we want the government to work. So, that’s my two cents worth on article 1.5.

Councilmember Adams: Well, I think you brought up two issues here. I think you brought up the partisan issue, and then, I guess, what you’re saying is it might–

Councilmember McGinn: Then let’s try to take a, you know, another bite at it with–

Councilmember Adams: I think you’re advocating an open primary, ie, where you would be able to vote both parties.

Councilmember McGinn: Sure.

Councilmember Adams: If you like history, and the history of American, certainly when there was a need for a new party, it came.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah.

Councilmember Adams: There’s nothing that says parties can’t come forth under the Constitution. Certainly the Republican Party had its own initiation in 1854.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, I would think, honestly, I think if we’re looking at this, that’s a different thought, I think. I think, first of all non-partisan, everybody runs as an independent.

Councilmember Adams: Uh-huh.

Councilmember McGinn: You know, and still, you know, the groups and the alliances will form and they exist. You know, that would be, I think, a good situation. If that situation does not work, if it doesn’t, you know, if it’s not passed or if it’s not, if it’s not passed then let’s slowly eliminate it to that you can’t vote a straight party ticket. But, then, third, a third tier, I think that a third option would be, at least a primary would be open. Why have to declare locally at the primary? But, I think that would be my least desirable of the three. I think the other two would, well, I think almost a straight party would probably, two and three in an open primary, probably would have to be combined. They would be combined.

Councilmember Friend: Well, then, what would happen? I mean, you could literally have five, six, seven people in the same office–

Councilmember McGinn: Sure.

Councilmember Friend: –then what would happen if not one got (Inaudible), the majority of the votes, you would have to go back in for another runoff. It would be a very expensive proposition, wouldn’t it?

Councilmember McGinn: I would ask a question, sure, it is. Well, I don’t know what very expensive is. I mean, I know the cities that have non-partisan, I mean, Chicago does this. It’s been non-partisan for 30 plus years now, and they periodically have a runoff. I mean, you know, you could have a threshold of you know numbers that you need or numbers that you need in the primary, and maybe you can narrow up to two. I mean, we’re free to do whatever we want. If we want to eliminate a runoff in the general election, then you can limit it by you have to get “x” percentage of the votes in the primary. You know, I mean, we’re free to do whatever we want. We can eliminate the expense of a second general election if we (Inaudible) the primary part of it. I think that would work.

Councilmember Adams: I mean, if you continue to have partisan and you have an open primary, then it would be the top people from both parties that would go on to the general. You wouldn’t eliminate an election. I think primaries are good. You get lots of people coming up and bubbling up and different things and so forth like that.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, well, (Inaudible) would say that if it is a totally non-partisan, then yeah you might not have a majority or a plurality and have to do a general among the top three vote getters. But, I mean, why not eliminate that at the primary level. We want primary non-partisan, and the top vote getters, the top three vote getters, or top two vote getters, or whatever, however we want to do it. You know, or, well again, that–

Councilmember Adams: Again, how does –

Councilmember McGinn: – (Inaudible) confuse the system–

Councilmember Adams: – one vote getter (Inaudible) why even have a general election? They would just have the election in the primary.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, I guess, I opened my mouth before my brain engaged. You’re correct, you’re absolutely correct on that.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah, right.

Councilmember Mosby: Yeah, but you’re looking at what was it 13 percent voter turnout for this primary?

Councilmember Adams: 10.6.

Councilmember Mosby: (Inaudible) second, so.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, 9.82.

Councilmember Adams: Well, that might put a burr on the people’s saddle.

Councilmember McGinn: But, that again, I mean, you know, historically, the primary elections have a ten, you know, ten percent to 15 percent of what happens in the general. So, yeah, I mean, even an open primary–

Councilmember Adams: You don’t want to lock down (Inaudible).

Councilmember McGinn: No, I’m just throwing it out there. I mean, obviously–

President Winnecke: That’s the whole purpose, yes.

Commissioner Abell: I’m not even sure you can legally do it. Can you? I remember one time there was some discussion that we couldn’t change a straight party vote without the General Assembly–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: John and I have talked about this, and we would want to research Indiana law before, as you see, the way it reads now is that the elections shall be partisan, except if contrary to the election laws of the State of Indiana. The most that I think you could safely do tonight, if you wanted to, would be to say shall be, in non-partisan elections, except if contrary to the election law of the State of Indiana. We can give you a firm opinion on that at the next meeting of this group, if you wish, but right now I would not be prepared to say that Indiana law would allow us to do what you’re suggesting.

Councilmember Bredhold: Would it allow us to eliminate the straight party vote?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: That’s what we would have to check.

John Hamilton: (Inaudible) the same issue. It might be helpful, if the two bodies are able to, if you decide you have a consensus on one versus the other–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Then we could look that up and see whether we can do that.

John Hamilton: If it’s a moot point–

President Winnecke: Oh, no, no.

Councilmember Bredhold: I did look up some studies, and I confirmed what was suggested by the consolidation committee, that it does seem to, according to these academics that I was able to find, does seem to depress minority vote, for whatever reason. So, I was a little less gung ho when that was what I was finding again and again and again and again about experimenting with that, but I don’t have any objection to eliminating a straight party vote so that people have to think about who they are voting for a little bit more.

Councilmember McGinn: Well, Wendy, I agree with some of those studies too, and I feel like you, I can’t figure out why it seems to disenfranchise that group, but, I mean, the numbers seem to show that it does, but, again, I don’t know why. But, again, a smaller electorate that is better informed, I think will lead to better government, at least theoretically. You know, I mean, over a period of time alliances will form, you know, it might be five, six, eight different groups, I mean, more voices. You know, I think pretty much everybody at this table when someone says this is what “x” party believes in, and this makes you an “x” party member on either side of things, everybody is going to look at that and go, well, you know, some of this I’m okay with. You know, it’s difficult to be–

Councilmember Bredhold: And I tend to think that on the local level that those party affiliations don’t mean much, but if you’re in favor of consolidation in general, you might be giving some people a reason to vote against it if they’re strong supporters of one party or another and don’t want to see them eliminated.

Councilmember McGinn: You know, that’s an (Inaudible) thing, you know, should we start (Inaudible) why we need consolidation rather than the plan, assuming it’s going to happen?

President Winnecke: Well, eventually we’ve got to vote on the plan.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, I know.

President Winnecke: So, I think that’s why we need to start with the plan.

Councilman John: Well, we only think about it as a blanket comment. I would like to see dollars and cents, the savings the plan is going to do. Now, it can be dollars and savings from the private enterprise, how they deal with government, less interference with government, better commerce, those numbers, which are, get a little abstract in nature, but from the standpoint of what’s it going to save, what’s the estimates that this process is going to save our community?

Councilmember McGinn: Could I jump in again? Again, I mean, I don’t want to monopolize this, but–

Councilmember Walker: I’m going to put a timer on you.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, I know, I mean, I’ve looked at this one a lot, I really have. You know, I’ve agonized over parts of this thing. This may sound, let me read something to you, this is not true, dateline Evansville, Indiana, May 5, 2051, Evansville, Indiana a once thriving city of 147,000, now down to less than 80,000, 14 percent of whom are unemployed lost its remaining major employer when XYZ Corporation just announced that it will move its corporate headquarters to Knoxville, Tennessee. Evansville’s population started declining in the 1990's when large numbers of people started moving just over the city limit line to the county. Taxes were lower, and county residents, most of whom worked within the corporate limits of the city and utilized city services, found that they could enjoy the benefits without having to pay. As the population of the city declined so did the revenues, and the city was unable to provide basic services. As the quality of life in the city declined, tax revenues decreased, basic services deteriorated to such an extent that businesses began to move to other cities. I say that because, you’ve heard the cliche a hundred times before that the city is the heartbeat of the county, and it is. Again, an arbitrary line between city and county, it should be urban and rural we should be talking about, but we’re all in this together, and if the city declines and people start pulling out, Aztar starts pulling out and if the hotels decide that they’re going to go to Warrick County or they’re going to go to Henderson, Kentucky, then the majority of the people who live in Vanderburgh County, and that includes city residents and county residents are going to lose their jobs, their property values are going to decline, we’re going to end up like Cleveland and Detroit were ten years ago with a major problem, with a hollow inner city, and we’re going to look back and we’re going to say, man, why didn’t we start on this earlier? You know, we need to pool our resources to maintain the entire area.

Councilmember Friend: You hit on one thing though, there has been a migration to Warrick County. There’s been migrations over to Posey County because Posey, the regulations they’ve got in Posey are not as stringent as here in Vanderburgh County.

Councilmember McGinn: But, don’t you think those people rely upon–

Councilmember Friend: Oh, absolutely.

Councilmember McGinn: –Evansville, Indiana to maintain their standards of living? They work in Evansville.

Councilmember Friend: My point is, I guess we can’t consolidate counties.

Councilmember McGinn: We can’t, but we can at least when we can, at the county we can, you know, be proactive and not look back 40 years and say, my God, why didn’t we do something in 2011?

Councilman John: Are we straying a little bit from 1.5?

President Winnecke: Yeah, let’s go back to, just to try and stay within the framework–

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible) to Donald Trump isn’t why we’re here.

Councilmember Mosby: No crystal balls.

President Winnecke: Partisan elections, would anyone else like to weigh in on partisan? Curt, Don, do you guys have anything?

Councilmember John: Well, I mean, I don’t think it’s broken right now. You know, maybe there’s a better way. I don’t think that it’s been proven anywhere, and I would be reluctant to tie that issue in with this issue. I think they are totally separate. Maybe it’s to be addressed at a different time, but I don’t think it necessarily has to be addressed here.

Councilmember McGinn: The partisan?

Councilman John: The partisan part, yeah.

Councilmember McGinn: Oh, I’m throwing it out, I mean, I don’t expect we’re going to vote on anything today, just throwing it out there.

President Winnecke: Anybody else before we move on? Anything else in section one that jumped out at people from the comments?

Commissioner Abell: I do have a question, Mr. Winnecke. The resolution that we got from the Town of Darmstadt, does that change anything?

President Winnecke: I think it’s a point of discussion, certainly. I’m not sure, in my mind we need to go through what’s been presented to us first. I think we should address it.

Commissioner Abell: Well, I was just reading where it talks about who’s involved and who’s not involved, and I didn’t know if that changed any of that part of it.

President Winnecke: Sure, we can discuss that now if you would like.

Commissioner Abell: Do our legal people have any...the resolution from the Town of Darmstadt, does that change–

John Hamilton: Wasn’t it just a resolution opposing it?

Commissioner Abell: Does it change anything? Does it encumber us to do anything different?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I don’t think it does. Initially, the Town of Darmstadt said that they did not want to be part of the reorganization effort. So, the only two bodies involved are the City of Evansville and Vanderburgh County. True, they are in Vanderburgh County, but as a governmental entity, they’re not part of this. They will be bound, as county residents, to everything that county residents are involved in, except to the extent that being a political, a separate political entity gives them some difference, but if that’s not provided for by law, they will be covered by this reorganization, since they are in Vanderburgh County.

Councilman John: I would say, on one other issue, the first election, and I’ve heard it discussed that it would be on even years, is that correct? As opposed to in odd years, an election by itself as it is today? I would kind of be opposed to that, because there’s so much influence, and you can tell from various Presidential elections, and Gubernatorial elections, Senatorial elections, that it has influence here even though it has no bearing on the candidates that are running locally for a city office. I would hate to see that influence have an effect on us.

Commissioner Abell: You’re saying that it should stay as an election on its own?

Councilman John: I believe so. That’s my thoughts on it.

Commissioner Abell: Well, I agree with you, because as we talk about the Council that we’re going to set up, we have to be mindful that we won’t be able to cross over certain lines and have a precinct vote. I mean, you can’t have, you can’t go into a poll to vote and have the State Reps or the Senators or whatever on the ballot, and then have a Representative for the Common Council that isn’t in that same area that you’re voting. So, you would have a really mixed up ballot. It wouldn’t work if you have other things on there, except that we would end up redrawing our lines after they get–

Councilman John: Yeah.

Commissioner Abell: –entirely finished, and then we might not have the lines and the representation that we intended to have when we started out with this program. I think if we stay separate of that, where our election is the only one that is on the ballot, it won’t make any difference where it is, because you’re just going to be voting for the people that you’re within and you won’t have any other offices. So, I agree with you that would really make it difficult, and really mess it up some.

Councilmember McGinn: So, the even years, it would never be with a State election or a National election?

Councilmember Bredhold: Which means that we wouldn’t have a vote in 2012?

Councilman John: Not a city vote.

Councilmember Adams: That’s different. That’s a referendum.

Councilman John: It would not be a city vote. It would be–

Councilmember Friend: That’s a referendum vote.

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, the referendum would be ‘12, and, I guess, the–

President Winnecke: The election would be ‘14.

Councilmember Bredhold: Which is an even year.

Councilman John: No, it would be ‘15.

President Winnecke: The way it’s–

Councilman John: The city election.

President Winnecke: – this–

Councilman John: Yeah, on that.

President Winnecke: –it would be ‘14, but we could change that too.

Councilmember Friend: Would it be a ‘15 election, or ‘13?

Councilman John: It would be, probably ‘15.

Commissioner Abell: You wouldn’t have time to get it ready by ‘13.

Councilman John: Yeah.

Councilmember Friend: That’s right (Inaudible) ‘13 or ‘15 (Inaudible).

Commissioner Abell: Have faith.

Councilman John: Which is scheduled for the next election anyway.

Councilmember Bredhold: Curt, I agree with you there. That makes a lot of sense.

Commissioner Melcher: The only thing that I’ve heard and read in the State, I think Indiana says the Towns is compromised on this with the State is that they want to move them anyways to save the money of the cost of the election throughout the whole State. They want them, they have agreed to put them on the off year of the President. So, that would mean they don’t want Cities and Towns to decide they don’t want it on the President, because you’ve got the President, the Governor, and your Mayor is going to be lost. So, they said that they would settle for the other, so you might see the State somewhere down the road say it’s going to be on that year anyway. That’s, and I understand that they’re talking right now, you know, I mean, it’s not the number one target, but it’s going to be.

Councilmember Adams: Well, then you could make it on the time that it’s not the State.

Commissioner Melcher: No, I know, I just–

Councilmember Adams: You could just adjust to it so that it would be the odd or even depending on which would be most representative–

Commissioner Melcher: I just threw that out so we know.

Councilmember Adams: I mean, our decision is not concrete, but I think your point is well taken.

Commissioner Abell: Because, you know, you and I are so close to each other–

Councilmember Adams: Right now?

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, location wise, our homes.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah, okay.

Commissioner Abell: But, we actually are divided because the line is down the middle of the street on which I live. That would cause us a big problem if we, you know, right now we’ve got it all set out, we’re going to have to redo it when they redo the districts to make sure that everybody stays in their own area. But, if we’re going to increase the number of Councilmen and make it a bigger area, I think you’re going to have a bigger problem, because it becomes a huge problem. I did the last one, I was Clerk of the Court, it’s a mess, (Inaudible) to do.

President Winnecke: Any other discussion on section one? Okay, let’s move on to executive two, or Executive Branch, section two.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Excuse me, Mr. Winnecke, just a question. I really can’t tell whether your counsel are being asked to research an issue or not. Are we, I mean–

President Winnecke: I was making some notes. I was going to ask at the end, but we can ask it now. I would say, we would probably, if I’m hearing everybody, we would like as much research as possible on partisan options, I would say.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay.

President Winnecke: Just so we can bring it back and have the information.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay, the reason I ask the question was if it was the sense of the group that they want to continue having it partisan, then there’s no point in our researching that issue, but if, otherwise we’ll do it.

Councilmember Bredhold: I’m interested in at least in the concept of eliminating the straight ticket vote.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: So, whether we could provide in this plan that there would be no straight ticket vote for any candidates.

Councilmember Bredhold: I think that’s worth investigating.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Certainly we can do that.

Councilmember McGinn: What about what Councilman Adams suggested of an open primary as part of that.

Councilmember Friend: What do you mean by open primary?

Councilmember McGinn: You don’t have to declare a party when you go in. I mean, this is totally separate than a non-partisan election, but you don’t have to ask for a Republican ballot or a Democratic ballot.

Councilman John: You get to vote in both primaries?

Councilmember McGinn: Well, you still, the city, you know, there’s only a number that you can vote for, you can only vote for one and they are lumped together, and two, I mean, I think that’s just a matter of paperwork.

Councilmember Friend: Well, like for example in the Council positions, how would you vote in the primary, then what would go to the general election? That’s what I’m trying to understand.

Councilmember McGinn: Well, I think we’re presupposing that it’s still going to be some type of a partisan election. I mean, that’s what he’s based on.

Councilmember Friend: Yeah, sure.

Councilmember McGinn: But, in the primary, you just go in and you vote.

Councilman John: So, if you have six at large candidates, three Democrats and three Republicans, because they would be listed.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah.

Councilman John: You would go in and vote for two Republicans and one Democrat?

Councilmember McGinn: If you wanted to, or you could vote for three Democrats, or three Republicans. I mean, you know, just do whatever you want.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: So, it would still be partisan in that the party would, there would be people from each party involved?

Councilmember McGinn: I think his, that proposal, in the primary, sure, I think it would have to be. It wouldn’t be–

Councilmember Bredhold: So, then would the top vote getters go on to the general. Or would it be the top vote getters in each party?

Councilmember Adams: Well, I think, certainly, if it’s partisan you would have to have three Democrats and three Republicans come out, whoever the three top vote getters were on each party would come out.

Councilmember McGinn: Then, it’s the same situation on a contested Ward race. The top Republican vote getter versus the top Democrat vote getter.

Councilmember Bredhold: That sounds kind of muddy. So, you would get to vote on Democrat and Republican?

Councilmember McGinn: It’s actually either. You know, if there are four people running for Ward 13 City Council, three Democrats and one Republican, you vote for two.

Councilmember Bredhold: Two total?

Councilmember McGinn: Two total, the top Republican versus the top Democrat vote getter in the general election.

Commissioner Abell: Well, that has a few little problems. Let me see, I think I’m going to vote for the person least likely to beat–

Councilmember Bredhold: Absolutely.

Commissioner Abell: –me.

Councilmember Adams: People do that anyhow.

Commissioner Abell: I’m going to vote for that Democrat that I think will not be able to beat me. It has its issues, but one thing for sure, if you’re going to go, if you’re going to do that in a primary, you can’t do it in a year when you’ve got any other race, because the State Reps are not going to go for it, and the President is not going to go for it, and the Governor is not going to go for it. They’re going to run partisan.

Councilmember McGinn: They’ve all told me that.

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, sorry. It would have to be on the ballot all our own. It certainly couldn’t be on a ballot–

Commissioner Melcher: And both parties are not going to go for it.

President Winnecke: Are you clear, unclear? I think, generally, we would like to know what options are related to open versus closed primaries.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yeah, okay. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Okay, section two, this is the Executive Branch discussion. There was a lot of discussion on term limits. We heard that a lot in several corners.

Commissioner Abell: I’m in favor of term limits.

Councilmember McGinn: I am too.

Commissioner Abell: I don’t like non term limits.

Councilmember Adams: I think I’m hearing from the people that they also are in favor, people that talk to me.

Councilmember Friend: Two terms are good enough for me. That sounds pretty good, two terms.

Councilmember Adams: Three terms. Three times four. There’s an aphorism in MBA school that you run out of ideas after a decade.

Commissioner Abell: Or 10:00 p.m.

Councilmember Adams: Well, I was trying to make it not quite so draconian.

Councilmember Friend: In the last 50 years have we ever had anybody go beyond three terms?

Commissioner Abell: Well, the thing is, I think, more importantly than whether they go on or don’t go on, is whether or not you can recruit people to run against them. Because, as we all know, name recognition is an important thing, you get ingrained, and you’re out here looking for somebody to run against a Mayor, and they say, I’m not running against him, he’s been there, everybody knows him. You know, he’s, they have that issue with the judges. It’s hard to find somebody to run against a sitting judge. I just think as long as you have no term limits, every year the guy is in there, or the gal, which we’ve never had yet, but, less and less opportunity for somebody else to run against them.

Councilmember McGinn: (Inaudible) is wonderfully popular and everybody wants he or she to be in there again, you lay out four years, and if they’re still hot, they run again.

Councilmember Friend: Marsha, we talked about this the other day. A city our size really requires a professional to operate it. It really does. We pay our Mayor a salary, he makes, a city this size, I’ve done some research on this, and a private industry this size, a guy would make $680,000 a year. Now, that’s private, that’s industry.

President Winnecke: In California too.

Councilmember Friend: Trust me, I’ve got some clients that make that kind of money that runs this size business. To me, you know, I like the idea of really what Bill Jeffers brought up, where it’s reversed. Either the Commissioners and appointing a City Manager, and a City Manager would be the CEO of the city. Then he could have a V.P., I’m going to use it like a corporation, a V.P. of Marketing, a V.P. of Operations, and then when these things come back in, they come back in to the Commissioners and they’ll just have to, you’re going to break deals, because they’re going to have to come back on a regular basis and report back to you on a quarterly basis, a monthly basis, or however that is, how well the city is running. Now, one step further, somebody said well why do you even have or need the Commissioners? Why don’t we have a parliamentary form of this deal, where the majority of the Metropolitan Council would select that Manager, and you do away with the Commissioners altogether. You would have 15 elected officials, and it would be a parliamentary form.

Councilmember Bredhold: The Council selects the Executive?

Councilmember Friend: Yes.

Councilmember Adams: Like a Prime Minister is what he’s saying.

Councilmember Friend: Prime Minister, yes.

President Winnecke: So, I guess, I’m a little confused.

Councilmember Friend: What’s that.

Councilmember Adams: I don’t hear people wanting to give up their ability to elect their Mayor, but I think we started talking about term limits.

Councilmember Friend: Well, (Inaudible) about term limits, but I don’t care whether it’s two or four–

Councilmember Adams: But, if you want to talk about what you’re saying–

Councilmember Friend: –it has the same parameters.

Councilmember Adams: – that’s a huge change–

Councilmember Friend: Yes.

Councilmember Adams: – we might as well move to Canada if you’re going to do that. That’s a huge change (Inaudible) consolidation.

Councilmember Bredhold: I said, love it or leave it. I was just kidding.

Councilmember Friend: No, but I’m just saying the term limits that would be encompassed in that, if that was the case.

Councilmember Adams: Well, how do you feel about term limits?

Councilmember Friend: Oh, I don’t have a problem with having a limit of three terms.

Councilmember Adams: I don’t care if it’s two or three. I’m just saying I think the concept–

Councilmember Friend: Yeah, I would vote for that.

Councilmember Mosby: Yeah, I think we need to have term limits. I really do.

Councilmember Adams: Obviously, if you’re going to have term limits for the Mayor, you need it for the Metro Council also. What’s good for the goose–

Commissioner Abell: I think you should.

Councilmember Friend: Yeah, sure.

Councilmember Bredhold: Just to introduce a different point of view into the term limits, and this is coming from someone who will no longer be sitting on the City Council or anywhere else after the end of the year, as a voter, my concern is that it seems to me we have a dearth of leaders who are willing to step forward and run. It’s already difficult to find people to run. If you have some great people, I mean, as Dan said, of course, maybe after four years they could run again, but, I think it’s just something to take into consideration, but, unfortunately it seems that there aren’t a whole lot of people who are willing to serve or put themselves out there. You would be eliminating their ability to continue to do that.

Councilmember McGinn: If there aren’t term limits you’re saying?

Councilmember Bredhold: If there are term limits.

Councilmember McGinn: If there are.

Councilmember Bredhold: I don’t feel strongly about that, it’s just, I think something to consider. I’m thinking of that from a voters perspective.

Commissioner Abell: I was just thinking it would do just the opposite. Without, with term limits, you’ve got an open seat, you would have more people that would realize that they didn’t have to fight a name, they didn’t have to fight somebody who, I mean, you know, somebody who’s an incumbent that’s already got a war chest built up to run on, and a new guy just can hardly raise enough money to buy yard signs. I think that if we had term limits, then the new people could start out on an even field. You know, nobody with higher name recognition or a bigger bank balance. I don’t know if that’s true, but–

Councilmember McGinn: I would like to hope it is.

Commissioner Abell: I would just like to, I would like to see some more people get involved in the process. I get, I read where people say they wish there would be some new people come out. So do we. I wish they would step up to the plate, but I don’t see them doing it.

Councilmember Bredhold: Maybe you’re right. Maybe it would be the opposite.

President Winnecke: It seems like there might be some consensus on term limits, three for the Mayor. Curt?

Councilman John: I’m just one vote. I’m not a big fan of term limits. I mean, if you’ve got a person in there that’s doing an extremely good job, but I understand your concern that they can build a war chest, but I’ve seen incumbents go down. I saw one in Indianapolis not long ago go down that had probably a huge war chest, but the voters decided that they were going to have somebody else. And, that’s my stance on it.

Councilmember Walker: I thought the Mayor had term limits now.

Councilman John: No.

Commissioner Melcher: No. If we go term limits, I’m not voting for term limits neither. I think the people ought to have the right to vote for who they like. It ought to be two then. That’s the same way with everybody else in this building. They get two. So, I would rather stay consistent so everybody won’t say, well, does he have two or does he have three?

President Winnecke: Like the County Constitutional offices?

Commissioner Melcher: Yeah. We’ll just keep it all two, just two terms. If that’s what the body wants. I think they have the right to decide who’s going to be here and who’s not.

Councilmember McGinn: Again, we’re talking about Mayor here. If someone is a wonderful Mayor that people want, or the same with a Councilperson, I mean, the Mayor situation, that city Mayor, after the term limits expire could run for the Council district in which he or she resides and still stay in the government, and still have that same influence.

Councilmember Adams: Like John Adams, went from the President to Congressman.

Councilmember McGinn: And farmer.

Commissioner Abell: Do you want to vote on it?

President Winnecke: I think, my feeling is we’re just kind of taking notes–

Commissioner Abell: Okay.

President Winnecke: –and then at a later meeting we’ll kind of go back–

Commissioner Abell: Okay.

President Winnecke: –and, I’m sure everybody will have some additional thoughts after the discussion. So, I hate to bog us down. Anything else in section two relating to the Executive Branch? It outlines the compensation, the appointments of the Mayoral staff, Deputy Mayor, PIO, legal counsel.

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible) do me a favor or increasing the Mayoral payroll, by virtue of the fact that the responsibility (Inaudible).

Councilman John: It does in here. It takes Mayor and adds the Commissioners salary to it.

Councilmember Adams: The question I was asking here, was whether you wanted to go more of–

Councilmember Friend: Well, it’s like anything, the reason why some people don’t run for certain offices, let’s face it, they’ve got their career. Now, I know, a lot of times it’s a duty to the community, I get that, but that does come into play. Some, the voters know that when you start talking about the salaries, when you start throwing $150,000, $175,000 out, that’s a lot of money to the average person on the street. It really, truly is, they think, man, that’s plenty.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, but I was a department head under two Mayors, and they spend a lot of time, it’s a thankless job most of the time.

Councilmember Friend: Well, sure it is.

Councilmember McGinn: It’s a hard job most of the time, and I personally believe that the Mayor of a city this size, Republican, Democrat or WIG, is completely, totally underpaid at today’s salary level. I’ve always thought that.

Commissioner Abell: I have some wording issues–

President Winnecke: Sure.

Commissioner Abell: –2.7.4.

President Winnecke: On which one?

Commissioner Abell: 2.7.4.

President Winnecke: Legal counsel.

Commissioner Abell: Legal counsel for the Combined Government. Combined Government meaning the Mayor and the Council?

President Winnecke: No, for the combined, for the new entity.

Councilmember Friend: It provides for counsel for the City Council later.

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, I know it does later, but I worry about it doing it here first. That concerns me, because I don’t want the legal counsel appointed by the Mayor to manage the legal affairs of the Council. I just want to make sure that that is separate.

President Winnecke: Yeah, I think it’s clear.

Councilmember Friend: It comes under Legislative Branch, doesn’t it?

Commissioner Abell: It comes up on 3.11, I believe. I just am pointing it out there, because I just want to make sure we don’t have that happen. I think that would be bad policy for a Mayor to appoint an attorney that would handle the legal affairs of the Council.

John Hamilton: It is right now, but it’s written in here. I think it’s written just the way you’re wanting it to be. The legislative body can employ legal counsel of their own choosing.

Commissioner Abell: On the 3.11?

John Hamilton: Yes.

Commissioner Abell: Yes.

Councilmember McGinn: Well, it says may instead of shall.

Commissioner Abell: Oh, it’s going to say shall. I’ve already made a big deal out of that may, shall thing.

John Hamilton: Well, I guess they could choose not to.

Councilman John: They could accept it. You know, for a number of years the corporation counsel used to be City Council also, under Toby Shaw and a number of those. Then there was a unique situation in Evansville where the Council became of a different political party than the Mayor, at that point in time it was decided that pursuant statute that the Council would hire their own attorney, and it’s been like that ever since. But, the Council could turn down and say, alright, we want David Jones to be our attorney, if he’s got time, or somebody from his office. This just allows you, so, if you don’t want to, and it says shall, you have to.

Councilmember McGinn: Well–

Councilman John: Just pay him a dollar, but–

Councilmember Bredhold: But, they should have to.

Councilmember McGinn: That puts a lawyer in a conflict situation.

Commissioner Abell: I think so too.

Councilman John: Sure it does.

Councilmember McGinn: I mean, a significant conflict situation.

President Winnecke: He’s just saying that it gives the Council the option to do it or not do it, and they may decide during a fiscal emergency that they don’t want to spend that kind of money.

Commissioner Abell: Well, they–

President Winnecke: I mean, I would think that you would always want, I would think that a Council would always want their independent attorney, but there could be situations where you wouldn’t want to, I mean, for fiscal reasons.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, well, I’m (Inaudible) and, I mean, you can’t have divided loyalties as the lawyer.

President Winnecke: 2.74 then, John and Ted, you’re comfortable with....and, then, we can change the “may” and the “shall” in the legislative section, if that pleases everyone.

Commissioner Abell: Okay.

President Winnecke: The, there’s, we had a lot of input on 2.8.

Commissioner Abell: Yeah.

President Winnecke: Mayor appointments shall not require advice or consent of the Common Council.

Commissioner Abell: If they’re policy making or financial appointments, I don’t think the Mayor should have, I don’t like that. I don’t even like on some of them that we’ve got right now, if you want to know the truth about it. I think, if you run and you’re sitting on this body, you should, we should have somebody elected on all of those boards that have fiscal...the Redevelopment Commission being a prime example, that spend money, without any approval from an elected body, and there’s not an elected person on that board. I think that is so totally wrong.

John Hamilton: You would have to change State law for that to happen, though.

Commissioner Abell: I know for that one it would, but I’m talking about for these that we’re setting up right now. I think we should be mindful of the ones that have a lot of power, and affect tax dollars that, I would hate to think that we have a board that can spend taxpayer money and a taxpayer called me and I say, well, I’m sorry, I don’t have anything to do with that because that’s in a board that’s spending it. It’s your money, it’s a board spending it and I have no control, as the person that you elected to watch your money.

Councilman John: But, if it’s a board that Council creates, they get to, in many instances, set the qualifications and can require a Councilman to be a member.

Commissioner Abell: And, I think that’s what we should do.

Councilman John: And, we can, they’re just saying the Mayoral appointments on these boards aren’t going to be subject to Council approval, you know, and they probably shouldn’t.

Commissioner Abell: But, a lot of those boards have Mayoral control. The Mayor appoints more members than anybody else.

Councilman John: Well, somebody is going to have control, either the Mayor or the Council–

Commissioner Abell: I would like for it to be the people that the people elected.

Councilmember McGinn: Make the contracts subject to Council approval.

Councilmember Adams: Didn’t we go around this bush last time? Didn’t we end up saying that perhaps, if it was legal, and I don’t know whether it is, that all of those committees that actually do spend money have to have them come to the Metro Council to have their expenditures or disbursements ratified by the Council? Wasn’t that the way we got around–

Councilman John: Right.

Councilmember Adams: –because, remember, you and I, wanted perhaps for you guys to be on the (Inaudible), on the Redevelopment, and there was a conflict of double jeopardy or double voting or something like that. But, is it legal for, let’s say for the Redevelopment Commission, when they give two million dollars extra payment, that has to be ratified by the Metro Council? Is that legal?

John Hamilton: I think that’s established by State law, and I’m not sure it would be.

Councilmember Adams: That’s another research thing for you.

Councilmember McGinn: But, what I think right now though, like Curt said, the State law would have to be changed–

John Hamilton: Right.

Councilmember Adams: Wait a minute, time out, didn’t the legislature say that we could do it anyway we wanted?

John Hamilton: Well, if it’s not contrary to certain State laws. I mean, I’m not sure you can do anything–

Councilmember Adams: You can’t have it both ways.

John Hamilton: Well, this is a new statute, I mean–

Councilmember Adams: I know.

John Hamilton: It’s just like the election law, I’m not sure we can do everything–

Commissioner Abell: Well, I think it’s a good time to be able to point out bad law. I think that’s bad law.

John Hamilton: The Redevelopment statute?

Commissioner Abell: I think it’s bad law anytime there’s an appointed body that can spend these people’s money, and I can’t do anything about it.

John Hamilton: I think there was even a law introduced this year at the Indiana legislature to change the Redevelopment statute and make a lot more of it subject to approval by the local Common Council and I think it died, or failed, or was voted down.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: It did.

Councilmember Adams: It went to Illinois.

Councilmember Friend: It was enacted over in Urbana.

Commissioner Abell: I just think we’ve got an opportunity to do something.

Councilmember Adams: Is it possible for us to have this in this, put this into the thing, and that act as a stimulus for the State law, to challenge it legally, or have them get off their butts and change it up in....see what I’m saying here, we’re supposed to be able to create a body new, anyway we want to, why not, if everybody agrees, why not do it and then put the burden on them?

Councilmember Bredhold: Why not expect a little more accountability from the people that we appoint to those boards and have them come and report to us on what they’re doing?

Councilmember Adams: That doesn’t stop them from spending the money. We’re talking about millions of dollars here.

Commissioner Melcher: They will spend the money, because I went between Christmas and New Year’s when nobody was there when they made a vote. I said, this doesn’t pass the smell test, they didn’t care, they voted for it.

Councilman John: Yeah, Redevelopment, other than the Redevelopment, what boards are we talking about that–

Commissioner Melcher: Redevelopment is the only one–

Councilman John: –don’t go through Council approval for their budget?

Councilmember Adams: Convention Bureau.

Councilmember McGinn: Oh, for their budget.

President Winnecke: The County Council approves the CVB budget.

Councilmember McGinn: But, the budget, you know, it’s a lump sum. There’s still the allocations of the money in that lump sum that’s not–

Councilman John: We do line item allocations.

Councilmember Adams: But, that’s a one shot in the year thing, and what she and I are talking about is different. I mean, they’re spending millions of bucks of taxpayer money, or how it’s done, and there’s no accountability on it. I mean, they really can do anything they want.

Councilmember Friend: Well, I know the ERC, bring their minutes, very similar, they even talk about dollars and cents. I’ve been through those minutes.

Councilmember Adams: I have too.

Councilmember Friend: You can’t find any money. Occasionally, rarely, I will see a dollar amount. So, I don’t know. I would have to be there.

Commissioner Abell: Well, we talk about accountability, and I think that is a big lack of accountability–

Councilmember Adams: I agree with you.

Commissioner Abell: –you know, if I haven’t got the time to go to some of these, to sit on some of these boards and monitor them, I shouldn’t run. I’m, that’s not the–

Councilmember Adams: But, even if you go and sit there–

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, if you don’t have any power.

Councilmember Adams: – you haven’t changed... yeah, if you can’t change it.

Commissioner Abell: If you have no power–

Councilmember McGinn: Like you said.

Commissioner Melcher: I know, I mean, I tried.

President Winnecke: Why don’t, as a point of research, and to continue the discussion, why don’t we have the legal staff check out, especially related to the Redevelopment, what options there are in relation to what we’re trying to do here.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yes, we can certainly do that, but, are you only talking about the Redevelopment Commission? For example, the Mayor appoints the members of the–

President Winnecke: No, that just the first one–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: –Board of Public Works. The Mayor appoints the members of the Parks Board, are you talking about those? I mean–

President Winnecke: We haven’t gotten to those.

Councilmember Adams: But, we do go–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Well, I just want, this would say–

Councilmember McGinn: (Inaudible) switch money from project to project and line item. They’re here just like every other department we have control over. I mean, I was on the Parks Board for forever, I mean, we still had to go through the City Controller, the Parks Board, you know, the paperwork from there, approval at that level even before it gets to the Parks Board, at least that’s the practice that I was under.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: No, we understand, Councilman, how it works today, and what I’m asking is what do you, I mean, if you’re only talking about the Redevelopment Commission, then we understand that and we’ll research that and we can give you an answer. If you’re talking about every board that exists in the city and will exist in the Metro Council, or under the Metro form of government, then let us know that.

Councilmember McGinn: Every board that spends money. I mean–

Councilmember Adams: Well, the Parks Board doesn’t spend money.

Councilman John: No, the Works Board does, the Safety–

Councilmember McGinn: Works, Parks–

Councilman John: –Sewer and Water, Parks, Levee, and we see all of their budgets, I mean, we don’t micro manage them and we don’t go through, you know, you’ve got so much in Office Supplies, what are you buying with it? We do have some large contractual service accounts, but as you recall, every year at our budget, they break that down dollar for dollar of what that is spent for. The same with every major project. So, even though they do go through those boards, I don’t think it’s anything secret or money that’s being spent that we’re totally unaware of, with the exception of maybe the Redevelopment Commission. I’ve never had a good handle on that.

Councilmember McGinn: If it’s all the boards that spend money, I mean, for those that there’s no controversy it would be as simple as prior to them voting on it we at least have, there’s a list and the contract, a simple form, you know, the reason for it, the amount for it, the vendor, the number of, was it bid, and what were all the bids, was it not bid? You know, a simple form on everything that they want to spend money on, where we have at least a concrete thing to look at so that we can oversee it, but I agree with everybody who’s said, I mean, we should have oversight. I’ve had calls from people that, you know, they find out about something and they happen to (Inaudible) and honestly (Inaudible) go to.

Councilman John: I don’t disagree with you, but we have a little more oversight than some people think.

Councilmember Adams: Certainly I would want you to look at the Convention Bureau and what the Metro Council’s ability to ratify their expenditures too. Because I was a little taken aback when I was told that it’s our money, we don’t want to spend it downtown. I’m sorry, that line just stuck in my craw, because it’s not their money, it’s their money.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I guess, another thing to be remembered, I mean, I hear talking about elected officials making some of these financial decisions, we remember, I think, that the Mayor under this Metro form of government is also going to be elected, and I’m not clear to the extent your talking about whether there should be a Mayor or not.

Councilmember Adams: There should be a Mayor, but another thing that I’m hearing, I’m sure everybody else is hearing, that they think the Metro Mayor is too powerful. This would be a counter balance to that.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: That’s a question that, that’s maybe a basic philosophical thing to be decided, how powerful shall the Mayor be under this form of government.

John Hamilton: The other issue that we’ve rehashed before is the division and separation of powers, you know, the Executive normally has the power to make contracts, or his boards do, and the Legislative bodies normally don’t approve contracts. We’re going to get into all of these various State statutes, but we’ll look at it and tell you–

Councilmember Adams: As Dan well knows, we end up on a stick, after being (Inaudible) responsible when the bids are perhaps not quite as open as they should be.

Councilmember McGinn: Or it’s a non-bidded contract, no RFP. You know it’s a good deal.

Councilmember Bredhold: I don’t think it’s a surprise that the legislative bodies of the city-county want to ensure that they have more power in creating this than the executive, but I personally don’t have any issue with allowing the Mayor to make his own appointments, and us making our own appointments without either approving each other’s appointments to these boards. I think we shouldn’t make the role of the Mayor so unappetizing that nobody wants to run for it because he or she won’t have the ability to, you know, act on his or her own.

Councilmember Adams: I don’t think I agree with you on the appointments, because it’s just a concept of expenditure of large amounts of money–

Councilmember Bredhold: And I’m not talking about that issue, I’m just actually just talking about–

President Winnecke: The appointments.

Councilmember Bredhold: –2.8.

Councilmember Adams: Sure, okay.

President Winnecke: Steve, do you have to leave?

Commissioner Melcher: Yeah, for you that don’t know, there’s a Veterans Council meeting of Vanderburgh County tonight. It starts at 6:30, and I’m the (Inaudible) and I’ve got to start it. So, I’ve got to go.

President Winnecke: Thanks, Steve.

Councilmember McGinn: Don’t let them do anything (Inaudible).

Commissioner Melcher: No, don’t worry. Thank you.

Commissioner Abell: Well, I think the one thing about this, and then I’ll drop this subject, because I know everybody doesn’t want to hear me talk about it anymore. We’ve all talked around it, and the one thing we haven’t said, and we all know it’s true, is that when you look at those appointments and you’ve got five appointments to a particular board and you say, well, now the Mayor’s got one, the City Council’s got two and the County Commissioners, the County Council’s got two, now the City Council that’s Democrat, so they’re going to appoint two, and then the County Council is Republican so they’ve got their two, now if we want to get anything through the Mayor’s got that appointment that’s going to make that, and it becomes a game. You know–

Councilmember McGinn: We’re back to non-partisan.

Commissioner Abell: – that it becomes a game when you start deciding who you’re going to appoint to these boards, who will listen to us and who will want them to do this and that, and I just think that the best thing to do is to make sure that those boards are not that easy to do this and that and that they have some elected people on there, and we represent the people that we’re–

Councilman John: So, non-partisan elected people on there?

Commissioner Abell: Non-partisan–

Councilman John: Because you’re going to have Democrats and Republicans, you’re making it a Democrat or Republican decision, instead of a good business decision.

Commissioner Abell: There never is a non-partisan board–

Councilman John: That’s right.

Commissioner Abell: –appointment. That’s right. That’s why the Metro Council needs to have a lot of input in that.

Councilmember Bredhold: Maybe we should look at the appointments and the way that they’re designated in this plan for the boards that you’re particularly concerned about and see if there’s anyway to try and, you know, form those boards to make that difficult.

Commissioner Abell: We can do that.

President Winnecke: I agree with what you’re saying conceptually. I think the thing we need to keep in mind is, as a member of the Metro Council, right now in this plan they’re proposed to be part time Councilmembers. So, if we’re suggesting that every board or a number of key boards or whatever has to have a Metro Councilmember on there, you’re going to require–

Commissioner Abell: Full time.

Councilman John: It’s going to be a full time deal.

Councilmember Mosby: Because, I mean, I’ll be honest with you, by the time I go to all of the neighborhood meetings and things that I do and try to work 40 or 50 hours on my other job, you know, it’s going to be really hard for me to be able to sit on so many appointed boards, because then I’ll be neglecting my neighbors.

Commissioner Abell: Well, let me just use one real small one here–

Councilmember McGinn: (Inaudible) contract approval solves those problems.

Commissioner Abell: –number 47, the Pigeon Creek Greenway Passage Advisory Board, the Mayor has seven appointments and the Council has six, who do you think is going to be controlling what’s going to happen on the Greenway Passage?

Councilman John: Why would you say that, where no one would have control?

Commissioner Abell: Well, if somebody is going to have control it should be the Council, that’s the largest group of people that are elected by the, that’s diverse. The Mayor, I don’t care whether he’s a Republican or a Democrat, it’s not going to be diverse. He’s going to be one or the other, but your Council is going to have a diverse group on it and you can have more input from a diverse group than you can from a party of one. Now, that’s enough about it, but that’s how I feel about it.

Councilman John: We’re just wanting the Executive Branch to now become the Legislative Branch.

Councilmember Bredhold: Council has never asked me a word about it.

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible) Parks Board come either quarterly or semi-annually and give us a report on what they’re doing, how they’re spending their budget and hold them accountable that way to the Metro Council.

Councilmember Friend: I know, I think the Controller gives us a book on an every month basis.

Councilmember Adams: Do you know how to read that thing? You’re a better man than I am. Jenny told me today that she finally has gotten new software so that we can understand that budget.

Councilmember Friend: I understand, but the numbers are there, you just have to find out how to get them. I mean they’ve got (Inaudible) the budget.

Councilmember Adams: The mountain should come to Mohammed.

Councilmember Friend: Well, what we should get is an executive summary given to us.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

President Winnecke: Okay, we’ve got a couple of issues on the table.

Councilmember Adams: At least.

President Winnecke: 2.8, it says Mayoral appointments shall not require advice or consent by Common Council. That’s one, should a Mayor come to a Metro Council and seek their approval for his or her appointments to a board?

Councilmember Bredhold: I say no. If you want to change like the number of appointees that’s one thing.

Commissioner Abell: Back here in the table?

Councilmember Bredhold: Yes, but I would rather not–

Councilmember McGinn: (Inaudible) that does not keep the Executive-Legislative and Judicial branches of government separated if we can....we need that separation of powers for the true balance. I think that the veto, or the, it’s the money that we’re concerned about. I mean, the Executive sets policy, we’re concerned about the money.

Councilman John: And legislation, finances and legislation, that’s what Council should be about. Not the Executive Branch, and if you start micro managing every board saying that the Council should control it, then why do you need a Mayor?

Councilmember McGinn: I agree. That’s why–

Councilman John: He’s elected to make those decisions.

Councilmember McGinn: Financial oversight, veto power, or approval of the money that is spent is fiscal, it still allows the Executive Branch to operate independently and we become the check and the balance. I mean, why not when a contract is signed that costs a dime by any one of these boards, we have, we can look at it. 99 percent of them, you understand, we’re, man, that’s good.

Councilman John: Not that it would have happened, but what would have happened under Russell as the Executive Branch if he had to come in front of a Democrat Council for every single appointment?

Councilmember McGinn: I agree.

Councilman John: I mean, that’s just not fair to the Mayor.

Councilmember McGinn: I agree with you, and that is not the role of the Legislative Fiscal Branch of government. That’s the separation of powers.

Councilman John: Even though we would have approved everything, just so everybody knows that.

Councilmember Friend: Unanimously.

Councilman John: Yes, unanimously.

President Winnecke: Okay, so 2.8, it sounds like–

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible) with the back (Inaudible).

Councilmember Bredhold: Yeah. I would like to comment on something that Mr. Winnecke and Councilman Mosby both sort of commented around, and it’s not a very popular opinion, but I think it’s worth considering, perhaps not now, but at some point is a full time Council. You know, Missy says she’s working 40-50 hours a week at her day job, she can’t get to these meetings during the day, she probably still goes to a lot during the day, during her work day, because I know that I try to do that too. It’s part of the reason that I’m not running. It’s because I don’t feel that I’m able to dedicate the amount of time that I want to to the job frankly. I can’t leave my work every day, but I could, given all of the meetings that there are, I could leave every day. I think that is an issue, and perhaps one benefit of that is that you have a Council that’s more on top of these things, frankly, who is keeping a closer eye on the money that these boards are spending, etcetera.

Councilmember Mosby: You’re right, if, I mean, this really is a full time job. To do what you need to do, it’s a full time job.

Commissioner Abell: It’s not a part time job.

Councilmember Bredhold: I just thought I would throw that in there. I doubt it will be dealt with.

Commissioner Abell: I agree with you.

Councilmember Adams: Well, we can. I mean, do we want to put that on hold and come back to it?

Councilmember Bredhold: I’m not sure. I’ve gotten a sense from talking to people that there’s not a whole lot of interest in it.

Councilmember Adams: Because it will cost them more money.

Commissioner Abell: Or somebody might have to give up a good job to take a job that would only last four years and then they’re out back (Inaudible).

Councilmember Bredhold: But, there are full time Councilman, the Indianapolis Council is full time. I don’t know the details of it.

President Winnecke: Okay, let’s try to hammer through one more section tonight.

Councilman John: Like 3.11, or like four?

President Winnecke: No, article three.

Councilmember Bredhold: I think we’re moving along.

Councilmember Mosby: I’m going to apologize. I am going to have to leave at 7:00.

President Winnecke: Okay.

Councilman John: I’ve got nowhere to go.

Commissioner Abell: Me either.

President Winnecke: This has to do with the Legislative and Fiscal Branch . From my notes that I made, please speak up, I think 3.3 might be the place to start, and certainly the one that I’ve heard the most about, the number of representatives.

Commissioner Abell: I will tell you what Mr. Melcher told me before he left, was that he is in favor of having no members at large.

Councilmember McGinn: I am too. I am in favor of 13, I’ll go with 15 or 13 (Inaudible) districts, no at large. I think that would be a great cross section of this community. I think that may eliminate some of the issues too, if there were more Councils, more Councilmembers, then you can stay maybe part time, because there would be people to go to the various things, you know. And, the at large is one of those things that, you know, you guys live a hundred yards apart. Do you live real close too, Curt? Somebody, there’s like three people that would be in one district.

Commissioner Abell: Curt–

Councilman Friend: The Fifth Ward’s got three representatives.

Councilman John: The three of us live close together, and Angela Walden lives two blocks from us.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, so it is, to one Councilmatic district, is certainly over weighted with at large.

Councilmember Adams: No, I just think it indicates a concentrated intellect, but that’s beside the point.

President Winnecke: Of course you would think that.

Councilmember Adams: Honestly, I will suggest to you that one of the reasons I ran at large was that if there was a problem and some terrible catastrophe down in your (Inaudible), if I was representing the Fifth and I went down to help you, what’s Adams doing here from the Fifth then? I get calls from all over the city, and one of the things that Russ Lloyd, Jr. said in his analysis was that the at large people are sort of mini Mayors. They have the ability to look at problems in the large, as opposed to little factions fighting against each other. I really enjoy being an at large, if you don’t want at large, that’s fine, I mean, that’s not going to affect me whatsoever, but I think it makes for a stronger Council.

Councilmember McGinn: I think there’s an argument for it.

Councilmember Adams: I think it gives a back up, someone’s sick, someone’s away on vacation, I’ve covered before when Connie was away next week and so forth like that. I think at large sort of gives you an ecumenical view of the city and large (Inaudible) things like the arena and so forth, you can sort of have, you’re not quite as focused in.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, I have seen in my two years on Council, I can say about all of these Councilmembers, they care and have concerns about the entire city, in addition to their Wards. I don’t think that that aspect of representing people would be eliminated–

Councilmember Adams: Well, I think they’re tied to their people pretty tightly. I mean–

Councilmember McGinn: Well, that’s–

Councilmember Adams: – for obvious reasons.

Councilmember McGinn: Sure.

Councilman John: I think in many instances I may be their second call, if for some reason they can’t get a hold of their Ward Councilman, and they say, well, Curt, I know you represent everybody, can you help me with this matter. Mine’s either on vacation or too busy at work and I haven’t been able to get a hold of them. So, we are like their back up Councilmember. I think they serve a purpose.

Councilmember Mosby: I agree. I think they do us well. I mean, there’s times if I have to go out of town on business, or out of town on vacation, I’ll let my neighborhood presidents know, hey, I’m not going to be here, if there is an emergency you can call my cell phone, but we’ve also got Council at Large that can actually help you with those issues.

Councilmember McGinn: That’s a different perspective, you get more calls from Wards than I do, obviously, about issues and problems.

Councilmember Mosby: Oh, yeah. A lot

Councilmember McGinn: Okay, I appreciate that point of view.

Councilmember Mosby: It’s nice to have another fall back.

Councilmember McGinn: I’ll keep an open mind on that.

Councilmember Bredhold: Is the rationale for eliminating them to have more Councilpeople to represent more areas, and to break it up into smaller areas? Is that the idea?

Councilmember McGinn: The people that have called me are interested in smaller areas and more Councilpeople so that–

Councilmember Bredhold: Smaller districts.

Councilmember Adams: That’s two different issues.

Councilmember Bredhold: But, that’s–

Councilmember Adams: I think you can have more representation (Inaudible)--

Councilmember McGinn: Then an at large on top of that.

Councilmember Adams: – districts being from nine to 13, you know, and then still have the 12 (Inaudible).

Councilmember Bredhold: I was assuming that what he was thinking was you’ll even have more representation without having to grow the Council out of all proportion. I assume that’s, is that the rationale behind eliminating at large?

Councilmember McGinn: Well, it–

Councilmember Bredhold: Just have smaller districts and not get the Council too big?

Councilmember McGinn: Well, part of it, but part of it was, yeah, part of it is the size, but, again, part of it is the concentration in one particular area to the collected other. But, I mean, I know the at large, I know, I guess I should probably have considered what you actually do more than something theoretical. Yeah, I’m open, I’ll stay open.

Councilman John: We do six times as much as you guys, election year.

Councilmember McGinn: But, I do want more Councilmatic districts, but, I guess, let me think about at large. I was thinking eliminate them and make more districts, but we can do both, can’t we?

President Winnecke: We could go to 15 and have 12 districts.

Commissioner Abell: That’s what I would like to do. I would like to go to 15.

Councilmember McGinn: I would too.

Commissioner Abell: Because we are pulling together such a diverse group here. You know, I mean, it isn’t like we all are pretty similar, because, you know, the flooding shows that we’re not. You know, the problems are inherent to the area, not necessarily to the population–

Councilmember Bredhold: Absolutely.

Commissioner Abell: –because of the way that our areas sit out. So, I would like to see, that’s what I would like to see is go to 15 districts.

President Winnecke: 15–

Councilmember McGinn: 15 Council?

Commissioner Abell: 15, yeah, you got it, you know what I mean.

Councilmember Adams: 12 districts–

Commissioner Abell: 12 districts, you got it.

Councilmember McGinn: But, still keep some at large?

Commissioner Abell: Yeah.

Councilmember Adams: I think that’s a workable number.

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, 15 people ought to be able to get along.

Councilmember McGinn: I’ve seen times when three can’t get along.

Commissioner Abell: I’m married to one (Inaudible).

Councilmember Adams: That’s why I’m not. Nobody can get along with me.

President Winnecke: Okay, elsewhere in article three, I think, well–

Commissioner Abell: Term limits of Councilmen.

President Winnecke: –term limits.

Councilmember McGinn: Did we say two or three, or are we still thinking about it?

President Winnecke: Well, the last thing Commissioner Melcher said was, in the interest of fairness and continuity with the Constitutional offices, if we’re going to consider term limits, make everyone two. So, I don’t know how everyone feels about that.

Councilmember McGinn: We’re supposed to simplify government, that certainly is a step towards simplifying government.

Commissioner Abell: Well, in 3.6, I would like to have staggered terms, because–

Councilmember McGinn: Oh, my gosh, yes.

Commissioner Abell: –I’ve sat on boards that didn’t have staggered terms before, and you really need some continuity that somebody’s still there that was there last year.

Councilmember McGinn: Somebody that knows where the bathroom is.

President Winnecke: Certainly with term limits you would have new people.

Councilmember Bredhold: Term limits, yeah, term limits you would have to.

Commissioner Abell: You would have to.

Councilmember Bredhold: Otherwise, it would be a whole new Council.

Councilmember Adams: So, the first election, somebody would be there for two years? The others would be elected for four. If you’re going to stagger them, you have to stagger them.

President Winnecke: Right.

Councilmember Bredhold: Two years isn’t much.

President Winnecke: So, maybe–

Councilmember Adams: Talk to Congressman.

President Winnecke: – our legal counsel could research how we could start.

Councilman John: You could do six years.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah, four and six.

Commissioner Abell: You could do four and six. Then it would be four from then on.

Councilmember Adams: Of course, then who do you stagger?

President Winnecke: Yeah.

Councilmember McGinn: Just a lottery.

Commissioner Abell: Well, you could stagger your even number Wards or your odd number Wards.

Councilmember McGinn: If it’s four and six, as opposed to two and four, nobody’s going to be upset if it’s a lottery. You know, I mean, the most you’re ever going to have anyhow is four now, the people who get shorted two would be upset. But, if they have two extra, odds are that it’s not going to bother anybody.

Councilmember Adams: So, it’s either eight or ten years for term limits.

Councilmember McGinn: One time, yeah.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah, one time.

Councilmember McGinn: Four and six.

Councilman John: And then, well, I mean, explain to me what you’re meaning by four and six.

Councilmember Bredhold: Yeah, I think I’m lost.

Councilmember McGinn: If they’re going to be staggered, as we had said earlier, I think that you said then the very first person has to have two years, you know, you cut their term.

Councilman John: So, you’re going to have two elections? You’re going to have an election every odd year? That’s the only way you’re going to stagger them.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah.

Councilmember Bredhold: That’s true.

Councilman John: So, you’re going to add an election instead of–

Commissioner Abell: Oh.

Councilman John: –combining one.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, you are.

Councilmember Bredhold: That would be adding.

Commissioner Abell: Huh.

Councilmember McGinn: Well, surely there’s a way you figure out where–

Commissioner Abell: Well, (Inaudible).

Councilmember McGinn: –well, yeah, but a four year term, you’re right, they’re even years.

Commissioner Abell: And, if you’re term limited, everybody goes at one time.

Councilmember Bredhold: Everybody goes at one time.

Commissioner Abell: That would be really bad.

Councilmember McGinn: That would be horrible.

Commissioner Abell: That couldn’t work. No, that won’t work.

Councilmember Bredhold: Not at all.

Councilmember Adams: Then staggered is more important than term limits?

Commissioner Abell: I think staggered is more important. I’m in favor of limits, but I still think staggering is really important, just for the pure maintenance of keeping the thing going. Especially if you have things started, like a grant or something, and then everybody’s gone and nobody remembers what anybody did, and you have to start all over again.

Councilmember McGinn: Staggered is more important.

Commissioner Abell: So, the Mayor would be term limited, but we wouldn’t.

Councilmember Adams: I like that.

Councilman John: You could take half, part of your seats, on the first election can only serve one term, the others can serve two, and then, on the second election those people would be running for two, then you’ll have, not guaranteeing that anybody is going to get re-elected, but you’ll have at least half of them that they’re ending their first term, and the others are going into their second. If that makes any sense.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah, it does.

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, that would work.

Councilman John: Good for you.

Commissioner Abell: Would you write that down?

Councilman John: I’ll get with the attorneys.

Commissioner Abell: I thought you are one.

Councilman John: Not anymore. Don’t accuse me of that. Oh, sorry, no offense.

President Winnecke: Okay, and 3.11, legal counsel, we talked about that, that word the Common Council shall employ legal counsel. Any other topics for discussion in article three?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I’m sorry, I didn’t understand what you just said.

Councilmember Adams: 3.11.

President Winnecke: 3.11.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yeah, 3.11, what–

President Winnecke: Shall.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Just change it to shall?

President Winnecke: Yes.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I mean, there was discussion, I heard that some people–

President Winnecke: I think they want shall.

Councilman John: So, you’re going to require them to whether they want one or not?

Commissioner Abell: They can hire the same guy if they want to.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, I think–

Councilmember Bredhold: Yeah, there isn’t anything that says it’s not the same–

Commissioner Abell: Yeah, it could be the same guy.

Councilmember Bredhold: –person.

Commissioner Abell: If they want him, they can have him. We could do article four, Mr. Winnecke.

President Winnecke: Yeah, article four is–

Councilman John: Let me think about that awhile.

Councilmember Bredhold: Wait a minute–

Councilman John: I think we’ll just leave four.

Councilmember Bredhold: What you would be requiring if it was the same person, what you would be requiring is that they pay them twice, is that, they both employ? Well, the Mayor, if they decide to hire the Mayor of the city, the Consolidated Government’s counsel–

John Hamilton: They could read like you’re required to employ legal counsel, whether you want to or not, I mean, I don’t know what you’re gaining as a Council by doing that, but you have the power to say that.

Councilmember Bredhold: Has there ever been a time when we didn’t need you, John?

John Hamilton: Well, no, but, may allows you to do it–

Commissioner Abell: If you hired just one for the Mayor, and he’s required to do all of the Mayor’s stuff and also come to the Council, you’re going to have to pay him this much money, or if you hire one for the Council and one for the Mayor, you pay the Mayor’s this much money and the Council’s this.... I mean, it’s the same amount of money, it’s whether you divide it up among two lawyers or one guy gets it all. I just like the idea of the Council having somebody separate than the Mayor.

Councilmember Bredhold: So, do you want to distinguish that it’s not the same person?

Commissioner Abell: No, if the Council wants to hire the same person, that’s their business.

Councilmember Bredhold: Okay.

Commissioner Abell: But, I think they shall have an attorney, because if he knows that they’re the ones that hired him and they’re the ones that can fire him, he’s going to be a little more responsive to them, than if he knows that he was hired by the Mayor and he doesn’t really care what the Council thinks, they can’t fire him anyway.

John Hamilton: Just so you know, I think it’s semantics, but the law right now on the Evansville City Council says that the Council may employ their own separate legal counsel. So, that gives them the right to do it, and at some point they exercise that right. There may be years when they do not choose to exercise that right. So, I don’t know what you’re gaining by saying shall, you’re actually losing some flexibility it looks like to me.

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible) coming up, John (Inaudible), I don’t believe I ever had the awareness that if you piss me off, that we have, as a collective right, not, to have somebody new. I mean, I think this body, the Metro Council should hire its own lawyer. It could easily be you. The bottom line is I think that gives them an entity, and I think that’s one of the things–

John Hamilton: What I’m saying is, you have the power to do that whether it says may or shall.

Councilmember Adams: Well, then you shouldn’t care whether it’s may or shall. If it doesn’t make any difference.

John Hamilton: Shall is mandating you to do it, and maybe you don’t want to.

Councilmember Adams: But, if you want to do exactly the same thing, you don’t have to, it doesn’t tell you who you can’t hire, it’s just we will have a Metro Council would have to sit down and actively think who do we want to have, be our legal counsel. I think that’s important.

John Hamilton: I was just explaining it.

President Winnecke: Okay, article four, the Judiciary. That does not change. So, I would say we’re officially through that.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Well, the Judiciary is requesting that it be changed.

President Winnecke: (Inaudible) language in?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: The...you see what it says now, 4.1?

President Winnecke: Right.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: The Courts would like to change that to say that the Combined Government has no Judicial Branch, Vanderburgh Circuit Court and the Vanderburgh Superior Court are agencies of the State of Indiana, and that the Combined Government shall provide facilities and financial support to those courts in the manner required of counties under Indiana law. An alternate to that could be, that the Vanderburgh Circuit and Superior Courts shall remain agencies of the State of Indiana, and retain all of their current duties and obligations–

Councilmember McGinn: And powers, do they want powers in there?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: No.

Becky Kasha: That could be added.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: That could be added.

Becky Kasha: We’re just making sure–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Let me suggest that, the courts have a different view of this, perhaps we can provide to this group the various alternatives, and then you can discuss it, but the courts are not wanting to leave it exactly as it is.

Councilman John: That’s fine.

President Winnecke: Okay, we’ll pick up there.

President Winnecke: Since this is a public hearing, and a number of people came to visit and listen and watch. First, we hope that you appreciated sort of the style, it’s very different, we just thought this would be a good, transparent way to watch how we’re considering this. If anyone would like to come and make comments, you are welcome to do so, on what we talked about. Bill? Why don’t you come on up.

Bill Jeffers: I can do it from here.

Alberta Matlock: No, Bill, we need to get you on tape.

John Hamilton: We need you on the mic.

Bill Jeffers: You’re recording this?

Alberta Matlock: Yes, we’re recording, Mr. Surveyor.

Councilmember McGinn: You’ve been here before, you know how it works.

Bill Jeffers: Good evening. Bill Jeffers, 2641 Malibu Drive. Section two, and I don’t have a copy, but I think it’s 2.8, Mayoral appointments. I don’t have my notes, I think I might have mentioned it once before, but, Mayoral appointments shall, no, that’s not 2.8, let’s see--

President Winnecke: Yeah, 2.8.

Councilmember Adams: The Mayoral appointments shall not--

Bill Jeffers: Okay, it’s 2.7, the last sentence, the Executive Officers serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and are excluded from civil service. Does that mean that the Board of Public Works Director, the Deputy Mayor, or any of the other four, I believe, that the Mayor appoints under that chapter, do not abide by the personnel policy set by the Council?

Councilman John: My interpretation of that is they are an employee at will and can be replaced as opposed to being a civil servant and irreplaceable.

Bill Jeffers: Well, civil servants aren’t irreplaceable, they abide by a personnel policy.

Councilman John: Well, I understand they do that, but they can’t be replaced because of political purposes, whereas department heads now, I’m sure whoever wins this fall will make some changes in January–

Bill Jeffers: Correct.

Councilman John: –with some department heads.

Bill Jeffers: I understand that, but, I’ll give you an example–

Councilman John: Maybe the wording is wrong and (Inaudible)--

Bill Jeffers: –this probably never will happen again, but let’s say somebody wanted to drive a county car to Gibson County courthouse and take , oh, a U.S. Senator up there for, and he happened to be the Board of Public Works Chairman, I mean, Superintendent. Only the Mayor could fire him, or does the personnel policy apply to not taking a county vehicle outside the bounds of the county without Board approval?

Councilman John: I would assume that all department heads are subject to city personnel policies, like all other city employees.

Bill Jeffers: But, it doesn’t say that, it says they’re exempt from civil service.

Councilman John: I don’t know if that’s–

Bill Jeffers: I guess, that’s my question.

Councilman John: Yeah, I guess, they would have to answer that one.

Bill Jeffers: Thank you.

President Winnecke: That’s a good question. We’ll clarify that.

Bill Jeffers: I noticed your copy was circled.

Councilman John: I’ve got a lot of notes in there.

President Winnecke: Other questions or comments? J.D.?

J.D. Strouth: My name is J.D. Strouth. I’ve got two issues, I guess, the first one, on the discussion of at large Councilmembers, I know currently it’s three at large, and it seems like the discussion has been maintain three or eliminate the at large Council positions. I would like for you to think of a third option, that would be to still maintain at large Councilmembers, but maybe decrease the number from three to one or two, that way it would sort of be the best of both worlds in a way that you would still have some at large representation of being able to represent, you know, Ward members when they are gone on vacation or unavailable, but maybe not dedicating three spots for that purpose.

Councilmember Adams: If there are two at large, then you would have to make the districts an odd number too–

J.D. Strouth: Correct.

Councilmember Adams: – so that you (Inaudible).

J.D. Strouth: And there shouldn’t be a problem with that. If you had, 13 districts, or 11 districts.

Councilmember Adams: In a sense though, we’re increasing the districts from nine to 13, or nine to, excuse me–

President Winnecke: Nine to 12.

Councilmember Bredhold: Yeah.

Councilmember Adams: In a sense you would increase the burden of the area for the at large people. Right now we have this much space for three and then we’re going to this much space for three.

J.D. Strouth: Well, an at large would still represent the whole.

President Winnecke: We were talking about the districts.

Commissioner Abell: Because right now they just do the city, under this they are going to do everything, all of Vanderburgh County.

J.D. Strouth: Right.

Commissioner Abell: It’s pretty encompassing.

J.D. Strouth: But, that’s also assuming that each at large Councilman would get one third the calls. If you had three, which is not necessarily reality of how it would play out.

Councilmember Adams: Well, after I get 20, I –

Councilman John: Is that in a year or in a term?

J.D. Strouth: Anyway, I just wanted to present that one thing to maybe consider decreasing it possibly to two, then that way that would allow the districts to maybe increase by one to have more, you know, smaller districts even, if you did that and still maintain your odd number of total number of Councilmembers. The second issue is more of a question of clarification in my mind, how did you all net out on the issue of staggered terms and even and odd, or even or odd numbered years of when the election was going to be? Did you all net out that there would be an election every year, all four years, that it would be staggered terms and the elections would be on odd numbered years? Is that how it was netted out?

Commissioner Abell: I don’t think we–

Councilman John: I don’t believe so.

Councilmember Bredhold: Curt made it–

Commissioner Abell: Curt is going to put something in writing.

Councilman John: I’m happy to. They are talking about limiting terms to two, four year terms, and if they make the first election where half the seats are, let’s say there’s 15, seven of the seats can only serve one term, and eight of them two, then it means the second election some of them will be running for their second term, the other seven will be running for their first term, because they couldn’t run for re-election. That’s one option to look at.

Councilmember Adams: But, it takes care of both the staggered and (Inaudible)--

Councilman John: Yeah, we’ll stagger the two maximum term limits to where they’re not all falling on the same year.

J.D. Strouth: Okay, but when we say staggered terms, we’re talking about every two years there would be–

Councilman John: No, every four years there’s an election–

J.D. Strouth: It would be every four years? Okay.

Councilman John: – the first election, the seven that are elected for the one term limits, they don’t get to run at the end of four years.

J.D. Strouth: Okay.

Councilman John: The other eight would be able to run for four years, but at the end of that eight years, they couldn’t run, but the group that was elected after the first four years would be able to run again. So, you’ve got half of them running, and their terms expire, the other half have another option to run for another four years.

J.D. Strouth: Okay, so, let’s say ten years from now, because I know short term you’re talking about how to get it on track, ten years from now then, every one would run.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah, but some people can’t run.

J.D. Strouth: Except some people would be term limited, but, I mean, I’m saying–

Councilman John: All of them would run the same year.

J.D. Strouth: Otherwise every seat would come up for election every four years then.

Councilman John: Yes.

J.D. Strouth: Okay, so, what’s unresolved is whether that would be even numbered years or odd numbered years, is that correct?

Councilmember Adams: That seems to have bearing as to what larger elections, State and Federal elections may influence that.

J.D. Strouth: So, you all will assign that later then?

Councilman John: No decision has been made yet.

J.D. Strouth: Alright, thank you.

Councilman John: I think some of us have voiced our opinion, but there’s never been a vote on it.

J.D. Strouth: Sure. Okay, thank you.

President Winnecke: Anyone else, before we wrap up? Bill, you’re coming back?

Bill Jeffers: How you doing? Good evening. How you doing, John? Bill Jeffers, 2641 Malibu Drive. On the three at large, okay, currently the three Commissioners each have a district, and those districts coincide with the school districts. The school districts will still have to exist, even if Commissioners go away. So, you might want to think about that.

Councilman John: Have them live in that district, but run–

Bill Jeffers: Run at large, right.

Councilman John: –city wide.

Bill Jeffers: So, you know–

Councilman John: That’s an option.

Bill Jeffers: –you have to, then the only place where you would have everybody from the same neighborhood is where those three districts came to a point. I mean, you know, that’s a remote possibility, but you wouldn’t have three people from Darmstadt, or three people from Knight Township. You would, you know, each person would have to come from a district, but run at large.

President Winnecke: Anyone else before we wrap up? Okay, we’ll stand adjourned.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Excuse me, question only. For our work, when you start meeting next week, you’re going to start, I think, in article four–

President Winnecke: Right.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: – and I know that we need to get the language for you, for each of you that the judges are proposing so you can look at that, and we’ll do that. The other issues that we, are you going to go back and, I mean, do you want us to have our work for you by next week?

President Winnecke: Not for next week, just the judicial issue.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: The judicial issue–

President Winnecke: We’ll circle back and get everything else at the end.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay. Good, thank you.

(The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:30 p.m.)

Those in Attendance:

Lloyd Winnecke                        Marsha Abell                            Stephen Melcher

John Friend                              Curt John                                  Dan Adams

Dan McGinn                             Wendy Bredhold                       Missy Mosby

Don Walker                               Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.                    John Hamilton

Alberta Matlock                         Becky Kasha                            Bill Jeffers

J.D. Strouth                              Others Unidentified                   Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Lloyd Winnecke, President

Marsha Abell, Vice President

Stephen Melcher, Member

(Recorded by Alberta Matlock. Transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.)