JOINT WORKSHOP

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS-CITY COUNCIL

MAY 26, 2011

The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners and Common Council of the City of Evansville met in a joint workshop format on this 26^th day of May, 2011 at 5:35 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: I thought, we’ve been through the, oh, let’s stand and offer our Pledge to the flag.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was given.)

President Winnecke: We’ve been through the proposed Reorganization Plan one time and offered comments, suggestions. I thought we would start back at the very beginning and start to make modifications. Many, obviously, are free to offer modifications that we discussed before, or if you have new ones, that’s fine too. I believe the attorneys will help us make notes and they will go back and re-write the Plan as we progress. So, if there’s no other questions or discussion about how we’ll proceed...I also thought we would take, because each body has to pass identical plans in order for it to go to a referendum. It seems like, as we go through each point we probably ought to do a straw vote. Obviously, it’s a non-binding vote, but a straw vote by each body, so we know that we have consensus, a majority consensus on each body. Does that make sense? If the attorneys need to keep us between the lines we can–

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Not at microphone.)

President Winnecke: Marsha is going to be here. She thought, she said she was going to be here.

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Not at microphone.)

President Winnecke: Oh, touche.

President Winnecke: If we begin in the introduction, I think there’s an issue that, I believe that Commissioner Melcher may want to address, and that’s the voter threshold, voter approval. I believe he expressed a desire to have a separate vote in the city and the county. On the issue of just the voter threshold, the attorneys say that if we change the threshold, that the whole process would begin again, but we can certainly have discussion, if Commissioner Melcher would like on the issue of separate votes in the city and the county.

Commissioner Melcher: I do believe it ought to be a threshold resolution. I wasn’t really thinking we was going to get to that tonight.

President Winnecke: We can come back to that.

Commissioner Melcher: I thought we were going to talk about that on June 30^th, probably.

President Winnecke: We can certainly do that.

Commissioner Melcher: But, basically that’s the way I believe it should go. Like I said at our Commissioners meeting, I think the law was written wrong the way it wrote on this issue. I don’t think this issue should have been the first thing out of the box. I think it should have been an issue that was handed to the committee, and the committee should have recommended one way or the other how they thought, and then we could make that change or whatever, but the way it was set up it looks like it was set up that way so it couldn’t get changed. But, even though it doesn’t say we can’t change it or we can change it, and I know the two attorneys are, I’ve always supported both of them, so, I agree probably with exactly what they’re saying. I think we could vote for it and still get it done before the end of the year, and I think we have until January again to get the whole thing passed to make sure it gets on the ballot. So, I think we still have time, even if they say we have to start over, I don’t think we have to start completely over. I think we have to hold all of the meetings again, and I’m willing to do that if it passes. If that would happen. But, it would have to pass the Commissioners first, because if it didn’t pass us, there’s no sense in the Council, the City Council voting on it.

President Winnecke: Right.

Commissioner Melcher: So, I’m willing on this one to wait until we have more of a body here, it should be a full body to vote on this one, I believe.

President Winnecke: Okay.

Councilmember McGinn: May I?

President Winnecke: Absolutely.

Councilmember McGinn: Thank you. Are we talking about a county vote and a city vote each?

Commissioner Melcher: Well, the threshold has got two or three different ways you can go. I’m just talking about the simple majority of the county outside the corporate limits and the city limits. It would be two separate vote, and it has to pass both.

Councilmember McGinn: Okay, so, but the county residents, or city residents who are residents of both they only get to vote once as a city person on the referendum?

Commissioner Melcher: Yes, exactly right

Councilmember McGinn: Okay.

President Winnecke: I’m fine with holding off, more discussion and the vote until later, until more people are here.

President Winnecke: I think in the introduction, the fiscal impact analysis, we talked about that last time, and, again, I think that’s something as we complete the modifications we’ll circle back with the Controller and the Auditor to get more detail on that, because, I think, to do so beforehand would probably be difficult.

President Winnecke: Going back in my notes, the first, there was a correction on Article One, 1.2, in the second parentheses, “upon the effective date as defined in section 1.8". That should say, that should read as defined in section 1.7. So, that will be changed. Again, I’m just going from my notes. So, if anyone has other things they would like to get to beforehand, jump in.

President Winnecke: I think 1.5, Partisan Elections, was the first thing in my notes from our previous meeting that there was a good deal of discussion on. Maybe the attorneys would like to jump in here and offer their opinions on this.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yes, we have looked at this, and it’s our opinion, John’s and mine, that we cannot make any provision in this Plan that violates State election laws. State election law currently provides for partisan elections, and for primaries. So, it’s our opinion that we can’t change that.

John Hamilton: I would add to that, I think State election law also provides for the ballot to have instructions, mandatory instructions for straight ticket voting. It sets out all of the procedures, and actually in the Home Rule statutes is a provision that prohibits political subdivisions from conducting an election without express statutory (Inaudible). So, I read that to mean, and I think Ted agrees that unless there is State legislation allowing us to do this, we could be prohibitively expressing. Just as we cannot conduct this referendum except for the fact that the State passed this law saying we could do (Inaudible).

President Winnecke: To clarify, in the counties, including this one, where the judiciary runs non-partisan, there’s special legislation that provides for that?

John Hamilton: Correct.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, John, was kind enough to call me on that. I had done some preliminary research on it too, and I was thinking of an oddball theory that if it wasn’t excluded, then you could do it. It made sense to me at the time, but I think wiser minds prevail. Yeah, I think the only way that this can be done is it has to be done at the State legislature, and that would be a , you know, several year delay in this type of thing. So, I think non-partisan or straight ticket is something ,or bi-partisan and straight tickets, unless we want to back track and go back to the State legislature and amend our enabling law, then we’re stuck with them.

President Winnecke: Okay, moving on, again, from my notes from last time, section 1.6, setting out the dates of the first election. Again, John or Ted could jump in here. I think the State statute requires that the election, assuming it would, a referendum would pass in November of ‘12, the first election would be in November of 2014. The new government to start January of 2015. In that year, just as a side note, in 2014 several county officers, officeholders would still be up for election; the Auditor, Assessor, Prosecutor, Sheriff, State Reps, State Senator, and one of the three County Commissioners.

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: Would be the referendum, a referendum.

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: 2013 would be planning for the transition.

Commissioner Melcher: Would the County Commissioner run if it passes? I don’t think the County Commissioner would run.

President Winnecke: It would–

Commissioner Melcher: Because if it passes in 2012, then 2014–

President Winnecke: Right, you’re right, you’re right on the one Commissioner–

Commissioner Melcher: Okay.

President Winnecke: -- but the others would though.

Commissioner Melcher: Right.

President Winnecke: Right, you’re right. So, 2014 would be the election year.

Commissioner Melcher: And that would be the first year without a Commissioner running.

President Winnecke: And, the new government would start January of 2015.

Councilmember Friend: Lloyd, didn’t we talk about this, having this on an odd, it’s on, yes. Didn’t we talk about this, having this on an odd year? We would be off the cycle with...did we do this or not do it?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I don’t understand what you’re saying.

Councilmember Friend: Well, what I’m saying is, what it is, the elections now in the city standpoint is in the odd years, it doesn’t go along with Presidential races and Congressional races and that. We talked about having that on the odd, I thought on the odd year on the elections.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: It’s just that we’re doing all of this under an enabling statute, and that statute spells out that the elections shall be held, just a second, will be at the next general election. The next general election would be 2014.

Councilmember Friend: Well, that answers that.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: We don’t have any, we just don’t have any leeway. If this is on the ballot in 2012, the election must be in 2014.

President Winnecke: I think, the rest of 1.6, I believe, probably the one thing, there is a sentence in 1.6 that reads; “subsequent elections shall occur every four years thereafter”. We had a fair amount of discussion regarding the possibility of staggering terms of Councilmembers, and that also comes up in 3.6 maybe, Term of Office. So, if the, when we get to 3.6, if there’s a feeling that we do want to staggered terms, we would have to go back and change this language. Well, you do, right, I mean, you could do it a number of ways, but you would have, theoretically you would have almost half of the Council, depending on what number we arrive on, for either, it could run for four years, or two, or six. So, it’s whatever the pleasure of, to keep them staggered if that’s the....but, we would have to spell out specifically which areas would be up for which.

Councilmember McGinn: Sounds like a lottery to me, on which areas (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: I think the rest of Article One was pretty self explanatory, just sort of the mechanics and interpretation of the Plan.

President Winnecke: Section Two, 2.4, we did have a lot of discussion on term limits. There was discussion for having term limits for the Mayor, well, we talked about two and three for each. So, I don’t know what, I don’t remember that there was a consensus. So, we can start that discussion.

Councilmember McGinn: Historically, we’ve not had a three term Mayor, is that correct?

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Councilmember McGinn: Oh, okay, there has only been one.

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Councilmember McGinn: Okay, so there have been two. Alright. I’ve always been in favor of two terms, just like the Constitution provides for our Constitutional offices.

Commissioner Abell: I’m also in favor of two terms.

Councilmember Adams: I’m in favor of term limits, and I don’t care whether it’s two or three. There’s an aphorism in business school that says you run out of ideas in a decade.

President Winnecke: Any other–

Councilmember McGinn: Again, there’s, there would really be no prohibition to prevent a member of the Common Council of a Ward running at-large, is that correct? Or running for Mayor or a Mayor after two terms running for Council? I mean, it’s just switching offices is what we’re looking at. Two terms in the same office is what a limit would be.

Commissioner Melcher: We haven’t got to the part where we’re even going to have at-larges, or not at-larges.

Councilmember McGinn: Okay.

Commissioner Melcher: So, we haven’t even gotten to that part yet.

Councilmember McGinn: Okay. I didn’t know–

Commissioner Melcher: We could just have it all districts–

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah.

Commissioner Melcher: –that way we won’t have to worry about three at-larges and the Mayor and one district all being elected from the precinct.

Councilmember McGinn: Someone brought up, well, when we get to that–

Commissioner Melcher: You know, and even though that hasn’t happened, it could happen. If you make them all districts then you’ve got, they’ve got less people. So, it’s–

Councilmember McGinn: Okay, but whatever happens with that provision though, there’s nothing that would prevent a two term Councilmember from running for Mayor the next election, or a two term Mayor running for Common Council?

President Winnecke: I would agree with that.

Councilmember McGinn: Okay.

President Winnecke: I mean, that’s my interpretation.

Councilmember McGinn: Okay, well, that’s what I was–

Commissioner Melcher: Mine too.

Councilmember McGinn: -- thinking also.

President Winnecke: So, is this going to be our first straw vote of the night? Of two terms, do we need to say consecutive, or just two terms?

John Hamilton: You can do it either way.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Do you mean–

John Hamilton: By saying no more than two consecutive terms, and that would mean they could run after they were out of office.

President Winnecke: I mean, the Constitutional offices can do that, right?

Commissioner Abell: Clerk, Sheriff, those can do that now.

John Hamilton: You could limit it to two terms period. (Inaudible)

Councilmember McGinn: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) I like two consecutive terms.

Commissioner Abell: But, I think I’m hearing three on this side of the (Inaudible).

Councilmember Mosby: I’m not in favor of a two term. I would be more apt to three. We actually have a term limit, it’s called the voters getting out and vote.

Commissioner Melcher: That’s my opinion.

Commissioner Abell: I agree with that. I’ve never been in favor, I’ve never been a big fan of term limits, but when I have read through this Plan and I see the amount of power that is being given to the Mayor, I’m quite concerned that if we had a Mayor that wasn’t the kind of Mayor we particularly wanted and he continued to gain more power because as you’re in office you gain more power strictly with the possibility, you know, you’re awarding contracts, you’re gathering in political friendships, if you will. I think, I’m concerned with the power that the Mayor is getting here over the Metro Council, that if you had an un, a non-term limited Mayor, I think we could be setting ourselves up for some big problems.

Councilmember Friend: Well, why don’t we consider two terms for the Mayor–

Commissioner Abell: Well, obviously, (Inaudible)--

Councilmember Friend: –or three terms for the Mayor, and, I mean, we could, I mean, Congress they have unlimited, but the President has two terms. It’s executive power that we’re talking about here.

Commissioner Abell: Well, and when you think about the Senate and you think about the Metro Council, you’ve got a more diverse group and you’ve got more people voting on an issue and there’s less likely to be the main one power. When you’re talking about a Mayor and a President, you’re talking about a main one power entity, and I think if you do that without any term limits, we, you know, I think we would be setting ourselves up for some problems.

President Watts: Playing the devil’s advocate, what do you do if you get a guy in that’s the greatest Mayor you’ve ever had, and he’s doing, done great things through eight years, everybody is happy with him–

Commissioner Abell: Well, B.J., one thing I’ve learned through my whole life that I’ve worked and I’ve had a lot of jobs, and a lot of them in the private sector as well as the public, is that I’m not indispensable. There’s another guy out there as good as me, and there’s probably another guy out there even better than me, but if you get somebody that’s corrupt, it’s harder to get rid of them than it is to find another good guy. That’s my concern.

Councilmember Friend: Do we want to do two terms, three terms?

Commissioner Abell: I’ll do three.

Councilmember Friend: Three terms?

President Watts: Three terms for the executive branch, and are there term limits on the legislative branch?

President Winnecke: Well, we haven’t gotten there.

Councilmember Friend: We haven’t gotten there yet.

President Winnecke: We can, let’s start with the executive. We’ll, okay, the Commissioners, we’ll break the ice here. We’ll take the first straw vote on three consecutive terms –

Commissioner Melcher: The only reason why I said two last time, if we’re going to have term limits, that’s what everybody else’s county has, that’s what the State has, that’s what, it just unconfuses everything, but it don’t matter to me if it’s three or two. But, I’m just saying if you want to keep, it’s going to be confusing enough for everybody in the beginning, and, I think Marsha is right, if there is going to be term limits it ought to be on the executive end. So, I would rather go two terms, that’s my opinion, but I’m not going to vote against the three. So, if we’re going to talk about it, I think two keeps us with all of the people, the Treasurer, the Recorders and that, plus, you know, I just think it works better. The Governor is only two terms. You could get a great Governor, you know. So, you just never know. So, that’s, you guys decide, I mean, I don’t care.

Commissioner Abell: Well, I’m happy with two, but I think I’m hearing the city is going to be more happy (Inaudible)--

Commissioner Melcher: Well, if we’re leading the charge, we could make it and then–

Councilmember Adams: We’ve got two issues here, term limits versus how long are the term limits.

President Winnecke: Right.

Commissioner Melcher: Well–

President Winnecke: I think we’re at term limits.

Commissioner Melcher: –you just make one motion to do it both. I’ll make the motion that we do two terms, and we either vote that down and come back to three or whatever you–

President Winnecke: Do we need a motion and a second? Or, are we just–

John Hamilton: These are non-binding.

Commissioner Melcher: These are non-binding.

President Winnecke: Okay, so–

Commissioner Abell: I’ll vote with you, Steve.

President Winnecke: Okay, we’ll make it unanimous, three, nothing on two terms.

(Commissioners approved motion in straw vote 3-0).

Commissioner Melcher: Okay.

President Winnecke: And, we’ll see what our friends on the city do. B.J., you can run your own vote here.

President Watts: The motion is for a two term limit on the Mayor’s office, or on the executive branch, the Mayor’s office.

Councilmember Robinson: Nay.

Councilmember Mosby: Nay.

President Watts: I would vote nay.

Councilmember McGinn: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) If it comes down to that being a deal breaker (Inaudible. Microphone not on.). If someone is very good they could run for Council, be out for four, come back, be hired Chief of Staff, whatever, someone who is a super Mayor is not going to disappear into the woodwork. So, I’m in favor of two terms, but, again, if it’s three I don’t consider that any sort of a deal breaker. If that would prevent this thing from being completed and going to a referendum. But, I vote aye for two terms.

Councilmember Adams: I vote aye for two terms.

Councilmember Walker: I don’t know what’s wrong with no terms. The voters can vote them out anytime they want to. I will support anything they come up with here, but I would just as soon leave it like it is, there should be no term limits.

Councilmember Adams: But, we’re not voting on that.

Councilmember Walker: If the voters choose to let a person run, then it should be the voters choice to vote them in or out.

Councilmember Adams: That may be true, but that’s not what we’re voting on. We’re voting on–

Councilmember Walker: I understand what you’re saying.

Councilmember Adams: Okay. So, what’s your vote?

Councilmember Walker: I’ll say yes, vote for a two term limit.

Councilmember Adams: Okay.

Councilmember Friend: I’m going to go nay with the two term limit.

President Watts: Do what, I’m sorry?

Councilmember Friend: Nay.

President Watts: I will say, just speaking strictly for me, I’m not in favor, I’m going to agree with Don. I’m not in favor of term limits. I think that we have a very educated constituency, and if they think Joe Smith is doing a good job and they want him to continue, and if he does things he shouldn’t, then I have no doubts they would vote him out. But, I’m one vote.

(City Council denied motion in straw vote 3 ayes to 4 nays.)

President Watts: So, I don’t know if you want to try a three term and see if it has merit?

President Winnecke: Sure. Why not?

Councilmember Robinson: How about no term limits?

President Watts: But, my vote would be for no term limits for the Mayor.

Councilmember Robinson: That’s the motion I’m waiting for.

Councilmember Mosby: Same here.

President Watts: Do you have any problem with us doing that-

President Winnecke: No.

President Watts: –first?

President Winnecke: No, go ahead. Free form.

Councilmember Robinson: I make a motion that there are no term limits for the Mayor.

President Watts: I’ll vote aye for that.

Councilmember Mosby: I’ll vote aye as well.

Councilmember Robinson: Aye.

Councilmember McGinn: I vote no.

Councilmember Adams: No.

President Watts: No term limits for the Mayor is the vote now.

Councilmember Walker: No terms (Inaudible).

President Watts: It’s four to two. John?

Councilmember Adams: Now you guys have to redo--

President Watts: (Inaudible) it doesn’t really matter.

President Winnecke: As soon as John votes.

Councilmember Friend: I’m going to say nay.

President Watts: Five to two in favor of no term limits for the Mayor.

President Winnecke: Okay.

Commissioner Melcher: Alright, so we need to change ours?

Councilmember McGinn: Wait a minute, was that five-two in favor of no term limits?

Councilmember Robinson: It’s four to three.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah.

Councilmember Robinson: It’s four to three.

President Watts: Five to two.

Councilmember McGinn: Just Dan and I?

President Watts: Just Dan and Dan.

Councilmember Adams: The Bobsy Twins.

President Watts: Oh, I’m sorry.

Councilmember Friend: I went nay with the–

President Watts: So, you want term limits?

Councilmember Friend: Yes.

President Watts: Okay, then four to three.

(City Council straw vote 4 ayes to 3 nays. Takes five ayes to pass.)

Councilmember Robinson: Today.

Commissioner Melcher: This is going to be a long night.

President Watts: And we have two members that aren’t here. They would make a difference if you want to come back–

Commissioner Melcher: Since these are straw votes, that’s not a quorum.

John Hamilton: And that’s not a, yeah, that would (Inaudible) even if it were (Inaudible), because it takes five Councilman. You can still take other straw votes just to see–

President Watts: I mean, you have Wendy and Curt that are both not here.

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: Somebody (Inaudible).

President Watts: Curt gave me proxy (Inaudible).

Councilmember McGinn: (Inaudible) gave me proxy.

President Watts: So, I don’t know if you would want to, obviously, this is going to be an issue, if you want to table it until we have, I apologize, we don’t have all nine here-

President Winnecke: No, I think that’s the–

President Watts: –but, I think that would be the responsible thing to do is–

Commissioner Melcher: We could bring it up at the next meeting, and we might, since they’re straw votes–

President Watts: Do you want to highlight that one as something that we can come back to?

President Winnecke: Yeah.

Commissioner Melcher: –if it passes, then we’ll have to vote on it then.

President Watts: At the next meeting, 2.4.

President Winnecke: That gets two stars.

President Watts: Two stars.

Councilmember Adams: Part of the reason that we discussed term limits (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) heard from people who talk to us here, they’re afraid of this process and they were hoping that terms would give them a modicum of safety in terms of fears. Now, I just put that out there because that’s where the terms limits have come from.

Councilmember Robinson: Then they can go to the polls and vote against (Inaudible).

Councilmember Adams: Yeah. I’m just telling you what these people out here–

President Watts: Everyone that I’ve talked to has said, every four years, you have a four year term limit with me. If you’re doing a good job you get to keep doing it, and if you’re not, then you don’t.

Commissioner Melcher: I haven’t heard anybody say anything about term limits. That hasn’t even been on the radar with anybody that I’ve talked to.

Councilmember Adams: No, it’s been out here, Steve.

Commissioner Melcher: I understand. I’m just saying, you know, I’m not in favor of term limits. I said that at the last meeting, but–

Councilmember Friend: Well, I mean, I grew up–

Commissioner Melcher: We’ll vote on it the next time. Let’s move on.

Councilmember Friend: –in a town that the Mayor was there for about 24 or 26 years. He just got the mechanisms–

Councilmember Adams: South Bend?

Councilmember Friend: Pardon me?

Councilmember Adams: South Bend?

Councilmember Friend: No, Terre Haute. Don’t hold that against me now that it’s out there.

President Winnecke: Okay, so, we’ll circle back on 2.4, hopefully, to, the next meeting.

(Consensus was to revisit the term limit issue at the 6/2/11 workshop.)

President Winnecke: My next note was on, oh, 2.7, at the end of that, we figure we can put the period at the end of Mayor, and delete the phrase, “and are excluded from civil service”. After speaking with the head of the Reorganization Committee, they just wanted to make, they wanted to clarify that these appointments serve at the Mayor, and this sentence, I think, that clause is probably redundant.

Councilmember McGinn: Just that they can be fired?

President Winnecke: Right, right, by the Mayor. Right.

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: I think it means the same thing.

President Watts: Do you want to take a vote on it?

Councilmember Adams: Well, I don’t know. I think if (Inaudible) changes we all have to agree.

President Watts: Do we agree (Inaudible) Mayor in 2.7 (Inaudible) excluded from civil service?

Councilmember Friend: Aye.

Councilmember Mosby: Aye.

Councilmember Robinson: Aye.

Councilmember McGinn: Aye.

Councilmember Walker: Aye.

Councilmember Adams: Aye.

President Watts: Aye.

President Winnecke: Steve?

Commissioner Melcher: I’m aye.

President Winnecke: Marsha?

Commissioner Abell: Aye.

President Winnecke: Okay. Thank you, Dan.

(Straw vote is unanimous for both County Commissioners and City Council on change in language on 2.7.)

President Winnecke: Two point eight, Mayoral appointments. This took a lot of time in one or more of our last meetings. In section, starting on page 22, exhibit D, we have a list of 59 boards and/or appointments. According to the attorneys, 23 of the 59 are governed by State statute. The others by local ordinance. What I’ve asked them to do now is to come back and put together, on a grid, so we can easily identify the composition of each of those appointments, each of those boards and commissions so we can look at a grid and just say, okay, the Air Board, the Health Department Board has “x” number, now they have, now they are appointed this way under legislation that applies to consolidated government, they now have this many. So, I think this is another one we wait for them to come back with this grid so that it’s more easily understood. But, we did ask them, and they did tell us that, or they told me that 23 of the 59 are governed by State statute, which means the balance we could, because they are by ordinance, we could change, theoretically, anyway we see fit.

Councilmember McGinn: Is this discussion on this, or are we waiting for a grid?

President Winnecke: We’re waiting for the grid.

President Watts: Okay.

President Winnecke: I had that discussion with them today.

President Watts: Okay.

President Winnecke: So, I asked them to put that together for us.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: We’ll have that ready for next week.

Commissioner Abell: Speaking of the Airport Authority (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Winnecke: Yeah, it’s on, it’s Evansville–

Commissioner Abell: Oh.

President Winnecke: –it’s under E, I think.

President Watts: John, my understanding is those that are set by State statute, we are, and, Ted, I apologize, but, we’re not allowed to change those?

John Hamilton: That is going to be our opinion. That is our opinion.

President Watts: Okay.

John Hamilton: We’re going to identify which ones those are.

Councilmember Adams: Are we allowed to change the make up of who appoints what?

John Hamilton: Not on the ones that governed by State statute.

Commissioner Melcher: Not by the State.

President Watts: That was my question.

Councilmember McGinn: But, at the end we still vote on whether or not these boards, or the departments that these boards oversee receive funds, correct?

President Winnecke: Right, and some of, based, apparently there is specific legislation that pertains only to consolidated government. So, there will be boards or agencies or departments or authorities or whatever that will be created as a result of consolidated government. Does that make sense?

Councilmember McGinn: Yes.

President Watts: Are those bound by State statute as to how they are appointed as well? Do we know that? They are? They’re not? Oh, okay.

President Winnecke: Okay, so more to come on that. That will be a bid action item next week also.

Commissioner Melcher: I have one question on the State statute, because I don’t know this one. Those boards are they paid? Does it say in the statute that those boards are paid?

John Hamilton: Which board?

Commissioner Melcher: The ones that are covered under the State statute. That would be nice to know too.

President Winnecke: I don’t know that any boards or appointments are paid.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, some city boards are.

Commissioner Melcher: There was boards that, under one Mayor, started adding pay. We had a Mayor that gave boards pay, where they didn’t have pay before.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, there a lot of boards that pay around $3,000, Parks Board, Safety Board, I know those for a fact, because they are in our budget.

President Watts: That’s the highest two at three grand. I think there’s some that are like $600–

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah.

President Watts: – or (Inaudible).

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, they’re in our budget. They have board members salaries.

Commissioner Melcher: And before that, some of those didn’t have any money at all.

President Watts: Is that one three too? Do you know how much that one is?

Councilmember Robinson: Three thousand.

President Watts: Three thousand?

Councilmember Robinson: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Councilmember Friend: Levee Board is something like (Inaudible. Microphone not on.) a month.

Commissioner Abell: Well, I think it’s a great time to revisit that, because I look at the Area Plan Commission, those people drive all over town looking at everything that’s going to be rezoned or be before the Area Plan, and they don’t get a dime. At four dollars a gallon that’s, you know, how much do you want them to donate to their community. You know, I think that they, if we’re going to compensate somebody, I would think Area Plan Commission is one that should be compensated.

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Commissioner Abell: Well, they ought to at least get paid for their gasoline to drive...we want to encourage them to go out and look at these places, so we should pay them to do that.

President Watts: That’s a great...John and Ted....is that something you guys can come, is that something that you can add to the table as to which boards are paid and what the compensation is?

John Hamilton: (Inaudible. Not at microphone.)

President Watts: Can you add it on to that same table that you create for the–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yes.

President Watts: –which are State statute and which aren’t.

President Winnecke: Okay, anything else under article two? Okay, hearing none.

President Winnecke: Moving on to Article Three, the Legislative and Fiscal Branch. The first item that I had was 3.3, the size of the Common Council. My notes, I feel comfortable in saying there was a consensus of 15. I’m not sure there was a consensus on whether we had at-large or not at-large. I know we had discussion each way.

Commissioner Melcher: Well, I’m not in favor of 15. I’ve said that from the beginning. The one before this one started out with 11, and then they went to 13, then they went to 15 at the final, and that’s the one the State didn’t pass. I think if we have 11 and three of them are at-large, make all 11 districts. I think that comes in around 14,000 people, which is 6,000 less than what the City Council has now, which is already the lowest in the State. So, if you had 11 districts, that should pretty much cover this whole district, and everybody should be covered. There shouldn’t be any problems at all, and don’t have any at-large. Most people, when they do have a problem, I’ve not been an at-large so I can’t say this, but they normally call the Ward, and just like last time when they talked about the Police, there was three Ward people that got up and said to keep it separate, because that’s the ones they call usually is the Ward. I’m not saying the at-large’s don’t get them.

Councilmember Mosby: I feel we need at-larges. For instance, when I’m not in town and can’t be available and I get phone calls, I lean on the at-large members so that they can help represent if I’m not available.

President Watts: I’m in favor of at large. I think you see, you know, our at-large members get to look at things in a little broader spectrum. I mean, because being honest, if I can get something on the west side, I don’t care if the east side gets it or the north side gets it or the south side gets it, I want it for mine. But, I think that you, when you’re at-large and you have that just voice talking to you that says this is, you know, we’re looking at things in a city-wide basis, I think it helps.

Councilmember McGinn: I think from the first meeting I had initially expressed opposition to at-large, then I’ve talked to some more people. At the end of that meeting I don’t think it was on the record, but the main concern seems to be that there could be three at-large, a Mayor and one Councilperson all from the same neighborhood, so there’s over representation. Someone suggested, it might have been you, Marsha, that the at-large, if there are at-large, be in the three districts, they have to live in the districts as the School Board is set out. Aren’t there three School Districts that pretty well geographically divide the county? That would eliminate that issue, you know, if, you know, super Ward One, super Ward Two, super Ward Three, or whatever you want to call it, but the School Board school districts are those three. So, then you could never have any more than three people from the same Ward, an at-large, a Mayor and one Councilperson, which is in a 13, or an 11, or a 15, you know, it’s not close to a majority. That made a lot of sense. That kind of convinced me that if they are geographically distributed throughout the city then I have no problems whatsoever with at-large.

President Watts: Can you say that an at-large has to live in a....like, are you saying, like if we have 12 districts, you know, one at-large member from districts one, two, three and four; one at-large is from five, six, seven, eight, is that....I mean, I don’t have any problem with that.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, just somehow.

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

President Watts: Nine, ten, eleven, twelve. Yeah, you guys run county-wide, but you have a district.

Commissioner Abell: Right.

Councilmember McGinn: And you have to live in that district to run. That would prevent the overloading of one district.

President Watts: I apologize, I was sick, I missed this part, but the 15 members as a consensus, you’re talking 12 districts, three at large, with one of those members living 1-4, 5-8 and 9-12?

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, I mean, number-wise, I mean, 15, 13, as long as it’s an odd number I’m pretty much okay.

President Winnecke: That seems to be reasonable.

Councilmember Mosby: I would agree with that.

Councilmember McGinn: Pardon?

Councilmember Mosby: I would agree with you on that.

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, I mean, everyone’s concern has been the same, overloading one small area of, you know, everybody from this area. This really does prevent that.

Commissioner Melcher: That’s the reason why I brought up just districts, that way that wouldn’t happen, because I didn’t care one way or the other. At-large is fine with me.

Councilmember Friend: Well, you know, Dan, we have that now. Doc’s in the Fifth, so is Curt, so we have three...pardon me?

Councilmember Adams: So are you?

Councilmember Friend: By George, I am, aren’t I?

President Winnecke: But, then, so is Marsha.

Councilmember Friend: So is Marsha, my goodness.

President Watts: We’re overloaded up here.

Councilmember McGinn: You and Curt could not run for the same seat.

Councilmember Friend: Yeah, I mean, I know. I’m (Inaudible) with that.

Councilmember Adams: I think what we were addressing was people’s fear that they won’t be represented. So, if we increase a number of the districts and regionalize the at-large, then we really meet that need of the average voter who is kind of worried about whether they’re going to lose their representation, both in the county and in the inner-city I think are the two groups that I hear that are most threatened by that.

Commissioner Abell: I’m in favor of the 15, but I want to say, we are going to use 2010 census, correct?

President Winnecke: Right.

Commissioner Abell: And, Mr. Jeffers is going to work on getting us some maps, I guess?

Commissioner Melcher: Well, he can’t do anything until we decide what we’re going to do. As far as the districts, it’s the Commissioner districts that the School Board runs under. It’s the other way around.

Councilmember McGinn: Okay.

Commissioner Melcher: So, he would have to draw the Commissioner districts as it is, and that’s where the school would vote. Isn’t that right, Bill?

Bill Jeffers: Commissioner districts need to be redrawn–

Commissioner Melcher: Exactly.

Bill Jeffers: – (Inaudible) to balance–

Commissioner Melcher: And then the school will follow suit that way. So, now, just so I’m not confused, on the Commissioner districts–

Bill Jeffers: B.J.’s idea might be better for a merged municipality.

Commissioner Melcher: No, and I’m not against that. I’m just saying that I know we’ve got to draw it anyway. Now, are they just going to run in their district then, I mean, in those precincts only? Or are they going to run county-wide?

Councilmember Adams: I think B.J.’s idea concept is excellent, because what we’re looking for is representation not only of the districts, but the at-large within that sub-segment of districts.

Commissioner Melcher: Oh, so it’s not going to be at-large of the whole county?

Councilmember McGinn: Whatever, I think whatever’s the easiest. If it’s easier to have 12 wards–

President Watts: It’s irrelevant to me if the whole city votes for them or just those four districts. I mean, if that’s who you’re going to answer to, it may make more sense to just run a 1,2 3,4, but I don’t have a problem with it being county-wide if everybody else does.

Commissioner Melcher: But, if you want the at-large’s to back you up that gives you three to back you up in your district if they run county-wide.

President Watts: That’s very true.

Commissioner Melcher: So, they have more into it in other words. Like Missy said, they have more reason to help Missy if they’re elected county-wide, the way I look at it.

Commissioner Abell: I don’t know how the drawing would be based on the Wards or the Commissioner districts, but in my mind what would be a very good way to draw for an at-large would be if you could almost take a point at the center city of Evansville, downtown area at the river, and then fan out so that at-large people had some county people they represented, or some rural people that they represented, and they had some urban people that they represented, instead of just one person, instead of just representing just an urban district, because that’s what our Wards are going to do. They are going to pretty much be urban wards or rural wards, but if we had the three at-large had a combination of both, then they get both sides of an issue, and that could really be some, that could really be a good turning point for the inner-city that worried about not having good representation and the county that’s worried about not having good representation.

President Watts: Do you think that would be solved by having the entire county vote for at-large? They have to live in that district, but the entire county....that way you answer to every single Ward, you have to live in 1,2,3 or 4, but everyone votes for those three?

Commissioner Abell: Well, you know, if I lived, see I live in what I consider to be the combination of both. I’m not really inner-city and I’m not really in the county, but if I lived right downtown and I had, and I was representing an area and I had part of Armstrong Township, then I couldn’t just, when I voted or when I worked on an issue it would have to be with the thought in mind that whatever I do down here in my area that I live and I know real well is also going to affect somebody out here that’s sitting on 80 acres farming. I think it gives that person a different perspective than it would if I was just sitting down here in my area and the only people I really was listening to would be my neighbors. But, that would take some map wiggling around, because–

Bill Jeffers: I think the Commissioner districts do that now. Like, Musgrave represented–

President Winnecke: Bill? Thank you.

Bill Jeffers: I think the Commissioners districts do what Commissioner Abell is referring to now. They’re kind of split north and south, there’s two districts and then there’s a line running, I don’t know, Diamond Avenue or somewhere, and the reason I think that is because Cheryl Musgrave lived in an historic district and she had the whole west side all the way out to the University.

Commissioner Abell: I like that plan.

Bill Jeffers: That’s the school districts also.

President Watts: Bill, is that something you could put together as far as them living in that district, but running?

Bill Jeffers: I could put the map together and the lawyers can craft the language.

President Watts: Okay.

Councilmember Robinson: So, that would be for the three at-large seats then?

President Watts: Yes.

Councilmember Adams: So, what you’re saying is, if we have different, separate districts that represent a whole host of different areas, and we would, you would have to have residency in one of those three, but as you’re saying, it would be a county-wide vote.

President Winnecke: I like that.

President Watts: That would be my motion. I mean, that’s my thought, but–

Councilmember Adams: Thus, if you had a problem on the north side, you could still go over to the west side and help out.

President Watts: Yeah.

President Winnecke: I like that.

Commissioner Melcher: Would–

Commissioner Abell: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Commissioner Melcher: Which that’s what you do anyway, Dan, cover it all.

Councilmember Adams: Yeah.

Commissioner Melcher: That’s what you do anyway and Curt does anyway, I mean, the ones that are at-large, they cover the whole town. We, as Commissioners, cover the whole county.

Councilmember Adams: Right.

Commissioner Melcher: So, that will work.

President Winnecke: Okay, so–

Commissioner Melcher: The number is what we have to get.

President Winnecke: Do you guys want to go first?

President Watts: So, the motion, I’ll start this, if I’ve misspoken correct me. There will be 12 Council districts, three at-large districts that, the kind of districts that will be voted upon by their district only, the three at-large districts will have to live in a super district made up of one third of the districts, Council districts, but the at-large seats will be voted on a county-wide basis. That’s the motion. Councilmembers in favor signify by saying aye.

Councilmember Mosby: Aye.

Councilmember Robinson: Aye.

Councilmember Adams: Aye.

Councilmember Friend: Aye.

Councilmember McGinn: Aye.

President Watts: Opposed?

Councilmember Walker: What you’re saying is going from 11 to 12?

President Watts: Going with 12 districts and three at-large, 15 total.

Commissioner Melcher: They’re going from nine to 15. They need your vote.

President Watts: Any nays.

Councilmember Walker: Yes.

(City Council approved the motion in a straw vote of 7-0 .)

President Winnecke: Okay, Commissioners?

Commissioner Abell: Same as–

President Winnecke: Same.

Commissioner Melcher: Yes.

President Winnecke: Yes.

Commissioner Abell: Yes.

President Winnecke: Okay.

(County Commissioners approved the motion in a straw vote of 3-0.)

President Watts: Give me that number.

President Winnecke: What number?

President Watts: What number is that?

President Winnecke: That’s 3.3.

President Watts: Okay, thank you. 15-12 and three, at-large is voted on county-wide.

Councilmember Walker: Okay, aye.

President Watts: Seven-oh, now. I apologize. I missed.

President Winnecke: Maybe it’s prudent to ask the County Surveyor–

Commissioner Melcher: Bill?

President Watts: Bill?

Commissioner Melcher: Can you come back up? Go ahead.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I’m trying to be sure we understand this. So, there will be 15 total, three of them will be at-large. The three at-large will run county-wide, and must live in one of the three–

Commissioner Melcher: Three districts.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: –districts, but that may not be 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12.

President Watts: However that’s broken up isn’t really....it seemed easy to me, but how they break it up is, you know–

President Winnecke: Commissioner Abell’s idea, I think, is maybe where we’ve kind of landed where these at-large representatives would have a broad cross-section of the entire community.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: And, you can draw that.

Bill Jeffers: Yeah, I think once Bill gets the map done, he’s going to rename everything, so, he’ll be naming them that way. So, all of those numbers will fall–

President Watts: I think once that map’s done it will be easier to break out–

Commissioner Melcher: Exactly.

President Watts: –and accomplish what they want to accomplish.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Thank you.

Bill Jeffers: I think the only catch would be, didn’t Commissioners assign the County Clerk to do the mapping this year, for the Commissioners district, new print.

Commissioner Abell: I think it’s the Commissioners decision, isn’t it? We haven’t assigned

Bill Jeffers: Right.

President Winnecke: We haven’t done it yet.

Bill Jeffers: You haven’t done it yet?

Commissioner Melcher: We haven’t done that.

Bill Jeffers: I think she might be anticipating that.

Unidentified: She’s done some work.

Bill Jeffers: Right, she’s done some preliminary work. So, I’ll follow her lead on how she breaks out the Commissioner districts.

Commissioner Abell: Well, you know, I was Clerk when we did it ten years ago–

Bill Jeffers: Right.

Commissioner Abell: –and, you did it and I didn’t, so. The Commissioners did not want me to do it.

Bill Jeffers: You started it.

Commissioner Abell: Well, I know that.

Bill Jeffers: Yeah.

Commissioner Abell: I’m just saying it’s the Commissioners call.

Bill Jeffers: It is.

Commissioner Abell: Because it was the Commissioners call then.

Bill Jeffers: It is, but I don’t want to jump in front of Susie. In other words, if she’s already started it, I’ll just follow her lead on how those three would be broken up.

Commissioner Abell: Well, hopefully, we’ll all work together on it.

Bill Jeffers: I can work with Susie.

Commissioner Abell: Well, can you work with me?

Bill Jeffers: Absolutely. We went boating together, didn’t we?

Commissioner Melcher: We’ve got photos of that.

President Winnecke: So, Bill, just to clarify, we’re asking, collectively we’re asking you to start the process of mapping the twelve districts.

Bill Jeffers: Okay. No problem. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Thank you.

Commissioner Melcher: And, we’re going to change all of the numbers, because before they tried to save numbers. Now would be a good time to clean the slate and have them in some kind of order so you don’t have number 12 and number three, and number five.

President Winnecke: Okay, that’s all the stuff I had on Article Three. Article Four may be the logical place to stop, because I know of at least one–

Commissioner Abell: I have something on Article Three.

Councilmember Adams: (Inaudible) term limits (Inaudible).

President Winnecke: Oh, I’m sorry. I overlooked that. I apologize.

Councilmember Adams: You did that on purpose.

President Winnecke: No, I didn’t. I just totally forgot.

President Watts: Where are you?

President Winnecke: Three point three, or 3.6.

Commissioner Abell: Well, if we’re going to stagger them, instead of two-four, I’m more in favor of four-six, because I think it’s going to be two years of total turmoil getting this thing going. So, I would be more in favor of some of them running for four years and some of them running for six, and then you can, after that first initial, then everybody runs for four years, because then you’ll be off on the every two years.

President Winnecke: I agree with that.

Commissioner Melcher: What you could do, you could flip a coin and say, there’s 12, the odd numbers is four and even numbers is the other. One way or the other, however you want to do it. You don’t have to have a lottery.

Councilmember McGinn: Just draw it out (Inaudible).

John Hamilton: You only need to talk about that if you’re going to have term limits.

President Winnecke: No, not the staggered terms.

John Hamilton: What’s the reason for staggered terms if you’re not going to have term limits?

President Winnecke: The reason that was expressed before, if I’m correct, was that there would be the possibility of a whole new Council coming in at one time with a steep learning curve, and that there would be some institutional knowledge already in place.

Councilmember Mosby: That was if we put term limits on it though, correct?

John Hamilton: That’s what I would have thought. If you had two term limits, they would all have to be replaced in eight years. If you had no term limits, how likely would it be that all (Inaudible).

President Watts: Yeah, I can’t fathom that. I mean, has there ever in the history of any–

John Hamilton: I’m just wanting to (Inaudible).

President Winnecke: No, it’s a good point. We need to clarify it.

Commissioner Abell: So, what we need to decide is whether or not the Municipal Council is going to be term limited first. That’s the first decision.

President Winnecke: Right.

Commissioner Abell: Well, again, I don’t think it should be, because I go back to the Senate and the House of Representatives, and they’re not.

Commissioner Melcher: So, I’ll make the motion for the Commissioners that we have no term limits.

Commissioner Abell: I’ll second that.

President Winnecke: Okay. Aye.

Commissioner Abell: Aye.

Commissioner Melcher: Aye.

(County Commissioners approved the motion in a straw vote of 3-0.)

President Watts: I would make a motion that the Council has no term limits.

Councilmember Mosby: Aye.

Councilmember Robinson: Aye.

President Winnecke: No term limits.

President Watts: Do you want term limits?

President Winnecke: Yeah, that’s what he said.

President Watts: Dan?

Councilmember McGinn: Yeah, I want term limits, but, again, it’s a struggle, we can talk, but I would like term limits.

Councilmember Adams: It’s, I mean, two against seven.

President Watts: No, sure.

Councilmember Adams: I mean, what’s different about that?

President Watts: Then–

Commissioner Melcher: So, that passed?

President Watts: That passed, 5-2.

(City Council approved the motion in a straw vote of 5-2. Councilman Friend and Councilman Walker’s votes were not audible.)

President Winnecke: No term limits.

Alberta Matlock: Five to two?

President Winnecke: Yes.

Commissioner Melcher: No term limits.

Councilmember Friend: Then, do we need any modifications?

President Watts: Do we need to stagger then? I mean, I can’t fathom.

Councilmember Friend: Do we need to stagger them?

Commissioner Melcher: No.

President Watts: Okay. Do you have anything else you want to do tonight?

President Winnecke: Marsha, did you, on the judiciary, Article Four, we had some suggestions, but were you going to get back...I can’t remember.

Commissioner Abell: I have heard from Stephanie at the Indiana Board of Commissioners, and she indicated, I actually wrote her an e-mail about the e-mail notes that the judge had put on the judicial branch, and she indicated that this is a problem throughout the State with County Commissioners and the judicial branch, but that it has been held that the County Commissioners Association has always deemed those employees that work under the county judges as being county employees and not State employees. She is going to send me something official and I have not gotten that yet.

Councilmember Adams: I think we skipped over three dash 11–

Commissioner Melcher: Yeah.

Councilmember Adams: –where you have one word the Common Council shall employ legal counsel (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Commissioner Melcher: I’ve got that too.

President Winnecke: I did do that too, sorry. All in favor of, I think this is pretty benign, changing “may” to “shall”.

All County Commissioners and all City Councilmembers voted aye in this straw vote.

President Winnecke: So, do we need to wait before we pass this? Or, does that really apply–

Commissioner Abell: You know, it really doesn’t apply. I really don’t care, not that, I’m the only vote, but, I mean, I don’t care how word the judicial branch. I just think that this is....now, if we have municipal, if this passes and we end up with a Municipal Council, the City Council has never had to deal with this issue, and, so, they don’t know exactly what we’re talking about, but this is an excellent time to set forth how we expect the people who work in the judicial branch of government to accept the county handbook, or at that time it will be the Combined Government handbook, I suppose, which will probably be re-written, and abide by the same conditions that everyone who works for the municipal government abides by, and that they work the same hours that, not, maybe 8 to 5, but eight hours a day, like everybody else does, and that they get county health insurance and those type things. I don’t think that they would want to give up the county benefits, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t get the county benefits and then also say, oh, but I’m not a county employee. If you want to be a county employee and get the county benefits, and we have a municipal government, we’ll have a municipal handbook and they should have to sign the back page like everybody else that got the handbook and are going to abide by it. That’s pretty much what the County Commissioners Association has said.

President Watts: Can you give me the example of what, because I have no idea, I didn’t know there was–

Commissioner Abell: I know, the City people don’t know there’s a problem.

President Watts: We don’t need to do it now, but–

President Winnecke: I agree, I think maybe we could pass the language, you’re right, this is something, if–

President Watts: You have employees that have all the benefits of the county employee, without all the obligations of the county employee, I guess?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Different obligations.

President Watts: And, you have one, uniform–

Commissioner Abell: They think they should operate under a different handbook than what we have everyone else operate under, that’s correct.

President Winnecke: Because the State are, operate the courts.

Commissioner Abell: The county pays their salary, the county pays their health insurance and their retirement benefits and everything. They get all that stuff, just like everybody else.

President Winnecke: For the purposes of Article Four, my personal preference is the compromise language that one of the attorneys proposed, which this is 4.1. It would be applicable to 4.1 and 4.2 which reads; “The Vanderburgh Circuit and Superior Court shall remain agencies of the State of Indiana, and retain all of their current powers, duties and obligations. The Combined Government shall provide facilities and financial support to these courts in accordance with Indiana law pertaining to counties.”

Commissioner Abell: Well, the Dr. was asking me about, without addressing that issue, does...I really, I would hate to see us address that issue in this, in that there’s a problem that you city people don’t know about, and I’m just saying that when we do the Combined Government, and if this passes, then we have–

President Winnecke: The transition.

Commissioner Abell: – then we’re going to have, the Transition Team is going to have to address it.

Councilmember Adams: I guess, I wonder why saying this, why not address it now? I mean, if we’re educated, if you could educate us a little bit about. I mean, you don’t have to do it here. I’m just saying that if there’s a problem, I think we should address it here to give some leadership to the Metro Council. I mean, you almost give some blessing to the way it is now by having that read the way it is.

Commissioner Abell: You could add, if you wanted to run this by the judges, “The Combined Government shall provide facilities and financial support to these courts in accordance with Indiana law pertaining to counties, but staffing, judicial staff remain employees of the new, Combined Municipal Government.”

President Winnecke: Did you follow that, Ted?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I did. I don’t think the judges will accept that language.

President Watts: I would at least like to talk to you and to them before we–

President Winnecke: We can table this.

Commissioner Abell: Okay, let’s table it then.

President Watts: Can we (Inaudible), please.

Councilmember Adams: Well, does–

Commissioner Abell: But, who’s running this show?

Councilmember Adams: – do the judicial employees work 35 hours a week and get paid for 40?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I don’t know what they work. They do have a separate handbook. It is different than the handbook of the county employees.

President Winnecke: We can circle back.

Commissioner Abell: Let’s do. Let’s table it.

President Winnecke: That’s where we stopped after the first meeting. Councilman Watts has to go. I think others do. So, we’ll convene....same bat time....we’ll give people a chance to talk, if they would like, a week from tonight.

President Winnecke: Anyone from the audience that would like to come up and address the combined bodies. If you would, just state your name and address for the record please.

Joanne Alexandrovich: My name is Joanne Alexandrovich, 9334 Motz Road. I read in the paper that this group wondered why more of the public didn’t show up to these meetings. While I couldn’t make the first two, I did listen to the third over the internet. I think you’re not getting more public attendance because it’s our opinion, the public understanding, at least it’s mine, that these meetings are for the two elected bodies to hash out their differences with the public asking for input at the end of the meeting. Basically, we’re bystanders. That’s it. I’m here today to reiterate things I said on March 30^th that I think are critical issues that need to be restated, clarified, changed by these two bodies before a merge proposal is forwarded for referendum. In my written testimony that I submitted, I quote; “ I oppose this idea of deciding later on how law enforcement is to be combined if the sole purpose is to rally votes for merger approval. It should be up to constituents who approve radical changes in law enforcement, rather than a committee or council.” It looks like you’re on the path of removing law enforcement merger from the current referendum. I have no doubt your constituents are telling you to keep them separate, but ideally is that what a merged government should consist of, two separate law enforcement agencies? I don’t know. I don’t think so. Is it right to ignore the elephant in the room just to muster votes? Kind of looks that way, what you’re doing. In my opinion, it is a cop out by this committee to drop the issue of law enforcement, even if you put in some nebulous wording to address the issue later. Let me put it this way, if residents are to live under an Evansville-Vanderburgh Combined Government, or as it has been referred to as a Metropolitan Evansville, why wouldn’t we expect to call the, and be protected by the Evansville-Vanderburgh Combined, or Metropolitan Evansville law enforcement? Makes sense to me. I guess it would be confusing if you did it anyway else. In my earlier written and oral testimony, I discussed my preference towards adopting a Council Manager form of government. I ask tonight, I think I’ve asked it before, has a merged government which includes a City Manager even been considered? If not, why not? If the answer is you prefer a strong Mayor model, I ask you why is a strong Mayor model preferred? What are the benefits and efficiencies? I don’t know what the answers are to that. Maybe you guys do. I hope you do. I’ve worked for the Vanderburgh County Health Department for almost 13 years. I have a pretty good feel for how our government, both the city and the county, work. How we work together. How we work well. How we work not so well. Sometimes partisan politics can work to the community’s advantage, but often I don’t think it does. I believe quite strongly that it would be best for a non-partisan, experienced manager to oversee the day-to-day affairs of our urban interests. Such a person should be able to figure out how to get things to run more smoothly and efficiently and to advise the politicians as to where major reforms might be appropriate. It seems to me that often reform for reform’s sake has overridden the considerations of efficiently and compassionately looking out for our community. If you asked your constituents, and perhaps also city and county employees, what, if they think it’s a good thing when department heads are changed each time a new Mayor or Commission comes to office, I bet they would tell, if they have the courage to, they don’t think it’s a very good thing. It’s party politics. We want people who are qualified by experience and training for the job they are expected to do. At least that’s how I feel. I’m not saying our elected officials appoint totally unqualified people for the jobs they hold, nor are all department heads always chosen because of their political affiliation, rather I think that non-partisan appointments would attract more qualified applicants and candidates for department heads. I think a merger proposal is like, as it is now, is likely to bring in more politically appointed managers, not fewer, hence a lesser chance to build and nurture efficiencies. City-county employee loyalties, in my opinion, should really be for the good of the people first, and to the elected officials second. As I testified in March, I believe a unified code must be presented as part of the plan for a referendum vote. There are many critical differences between the city and county codes. While I believe enforcement of both city and county codes would be easier and more efficient if they were identical. I also believe strongly that the merger of the code should be proposed prior to as part of a referendum vote. Why was this task not seriously addressed by the consolidation committee? I don’t know. Merging codes, in my opinion, is a huge task. One that shouldn’t be ignored now and expected to be resolved by a committee in short time afterwards. Here are a couple of examples. As a county employee my benefits and obligations of employment are dictated by the code. How will my benefits and obligations change if the two governments are merged? As a county resident, what won’t I be able to do on my own property that I can do now? I think my concerns in this regard were addressed briefly last week by Mr. Bittner, a member of the reorganization committee who stated he was not in favor of the Plan the committee put forward. Mr. Bittner referred to bees, I’m going to add bees to my concerns about rural residents rights to raise, for instance, chickens, cows, horses, pigs and goats. The rural community of Vanderburgh County has very different needs compared to that of city residents. The structure outlined in the current Plan, ignoring discrepancies of district outlines, simply result in the expansion of current city Mayor, Council government to the county lines. I don’t, excuse me, I think I speak for many rural residents when I say that is not what we want. I don’t think we need to, for example, enforce city weed control ordinances pertaining to vegetated height in the hay fields out in the county, nor are livestock restrictions appropriate. There are many unanswered questions and concerns about how this merger might change the way of life which many people are accustomed. These are not concerns that should be left until later, when a metropolitan council, that includes a super majority of urban representatives will decide the issues. I really don’t know if city people understand the rural way of life, let alone if they will look out for our best interests. Why have you not decided what to do with respect to consolidating city and county codes? In conclusion, these three issues, as yet unresolved, are very important to me. Nitpicking about the number of Councilpeople, district borders and how to pretend, excuse me, I mean parse that the merging of law enforcement will be addressed later, while perhaps might help to get more votes, will not make our government more efficient and responsive to the people. In March I asked you to either send this proposal back for an overhaul or throw it away completely. Now that I see the overhaul is not addressing so many important issues, I suggest you stop tweaking it now and start all over with a fresh slate and a new merger committee tasked with proposing a new plan. Perhaps instead you can all simply agree to disagree and conclude not to send this merger to referendum. If you all agree on that, how could anybody possibly hold you responsible at the next political race? If you don’t agree, are you ready to defend this Plan? Thanks for listening. I hope you’ll reflect on what I said.

President Winnecke: Thanks, Joanne.

Bill Jeffers: The, June 30^th are you going to address the merger, or possible merger of law enforcement at that time? Is that, what chapter is that in?

President Winnecke: That’s in chapter nine, I think.

Bill Jeffers: Well, whenever you get there you are going to discuss it, aren’t you?

President Winnecke: Right.

Bill Jeffers: Okay.

President Winnecke: Yeah, it will, we’ll make the modifications as we go, by section.

Bill Jeffers: Okay. I just wanted to point out, when I heard your attorney refer to Mayoral appointments, there are 23 out of 59 boards are governed by State statute and you can’t change the composition of those boards or the method by which they’re appointed. Did I hear that correctly?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Yes.

Bill Jeffers: Okay. So, I just wanted to point out an example, and I don’t know if my example is typical of some others of the 23, but the Drainage Board is comprised of the three Commissioners and the statute says or five citizens appointed by the three Commissioners. So, the Commissioners go away, that means it would be five citizens appointed.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Or simply the Mayor.

Bill Jeffers: It think that might answer my question. My question was going to be, since the County Commissioners are an executive/legislative body, would the Council appoint those five people or would the Mayor appoint those five people? I’m not asking for an answer now, it just occurred to me, who appoints them? I don’t know if that’s going to be typical of some of the 23 other boards, but I certainly wouldn’t think that if there’s another board similar to what I’m talking about that the Mayor would be that board too, by himself. Or, would it go away? I just wanted to throw that out there.

President Winnecke: Thanks, Bill. Eldon?

Eldon Maasberg: I think I’ll pass tonight.

President Winnecke: Okay. Mike?

Mike Mahan: I got my answer from last week.

President Winnecke: Okay.

Mike Mahan: That shows you listen to citizens.

Cynthia Maasberg: I’m Cynthia Maasberg. I’m here representing the Vanderburgh County Farm Bureau Board. We had provided earlier some of our points, and I hope you will all take those and look through them again, because seeing what is going on here tonight and in the past meetings, there’s not agreement here. How do you expect the people in the county, I shouldn’t say county when I’m referring to rural, and the city to feel comfortable with what’s being presented. I hope you’ll realize there’s a lot more work that’s needed. I hope that you’ll just reject the Plan. Thank you.

President Winnecke: Any other comments to come before us? Hearing none, I would move that we continue until next week.

Councilmember Mosby: Second.

(The meeting ended at approximately 6:35 p.m.)

Those in Attendance:

Lloyd Winnecke                        Marsha Abell                            Stephen Melcher

B.J. Watts                                 John Friend                              Dan McGinn

Missy Mosby                             Connie Robinson                      H. Dan Adams

Don Walker                               Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.                    John Hamilton

Alberta Matlock                         Joanne Alexandrovich              Bill Jeffers

Eldon Maasberg                       Mike Mahan                              Cynthia Maasberg

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.)