VANDERBURGH COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

OCTOBER 20, 2003

The Vanderburgh County Board of Commissioners met in session this 20^th day of October, 2003 at 5:34 p.m. in Room 307 of the Civic Center Complex with President David Mosby presiding.

Commissioner Mosby: I would like to call to order Board of Commissioners meeting of Vanderburgh County for October 20, 2003. Introductions are as follows, Tammy McKinney, Superintendent of Buildings; Counselor, Kevin Winternheimer; Commissioner Fanello; myself; Commissioner Crouch; Auditor, Bill Fluty; and Recording Secretary, Madelyn Grayson. Please stand and join us in the Pledge.

(The Pledge of Allegiance was given.)

President Mosby: Do I have a motion to approve the October 13, 2003 Commission minutes?

Commissioner Fanello: so moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered.

President Mosby: Next we have bids advertisements and openings. Phil Lawrence, permission to open VC02-2003, tax bills.

Kevin Winternheimer: One bid? Are there any other bids in the audience on this or any other project or items tonight? Seeing none. We have one bid, okay, the one and only bidder is the Relizon, R-e-l-i-z-o-n, Company. Let’s see, their address is Evansville, Indiana. For item one, 80,000 tax bills, their cost, $20,608.22. For mailing costs, their price is $22,240. For a total of $42,848.22. That’s the only bid I have.

Phil Lawrence: I would like to take that under advisement?

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to take under advisement.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second to take bid under advisement. So ordered.

Phil Lawrence: Thank you.

President Mosby: Thank you.

President Mosby: Next we have the Auditor, permission to advertise notice of public hearing for the vacation of utility easement.

Madelyn Grayson: The only thing we need to clarify is whether the public hearing will be November 3^rd or November 10^th. Because traditionally we have it two weeks after permission to advertise, but that’s the night before the election. I didn’t know if we were going to have a meeting that night or not, on the 3^rd.

President Mosby: Probably not.

Madelyn Grayson: So, schedule it for the 10^th?

President Mosby: I would say schedule it for the 10^th.

Commissioner Fanello: I make a motion to allow permission to advertise.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second to advertise for November 10th. So ordered.

President Mosby: Next we have John Stoll, open quotes on Old State Road Bridge 1582 rehabilitation, VC03-10-01.

Kevin Winternheimer: Mr. President, I have those bids. I assume there are no more from the audience. Seeing none. We have two.

Kevin Winternheimer: The first is from CCC of Evansville, Inc. It’s an itemized bid. Let me find a total, the total quote is $72,428.85. We have one more, the last one is from Deig Brothers Lumber and Construction Company, Inc. of Evansville. Their total quote, $96,162. That’s all we have.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to take under advisement.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second to take bids under advisement. So ordered.

President Mosby: Next, under discussion items, Judy Weatherholt, certified technology park.

Judy Weatherholt: Good evening. I’m Judy Weatherholt with the Southwestern Indiana Regional Development Commission. Just wanted to, you should have had in your packets that was mailed out to you, some information about the certified technology park program. This is a program that is administered by the Indiana Department of Commerce. This program is a designation program to start out with. It also allows you to set up some recapture money over a period of the park, as the property that you designate as a certified technology park. It allows a recapture of taxes similar to a TIF district, up to about $5 million over the life of the park. This money can be used for public facility work within that park. Also, if it’s designated a certified technology park, there is another fund that you can apply for, and it’s called a redevelopment fund, that’s around $4 million that will allow you to do other things within your technology park. Cities and towns and counties are the eligible applicants for this certification, or designation. You have to have a department of redevelopment, or a department of metropolitan development. I’m assuming that you all have a redevelopment commission for the county. So, there’s also some other stipulations within this application, is that you have a university that would be attached to that project willing to work with you to do some work in regards to your project. You also have to have a firm that is committed as a high technology firm. This particular park designation is targeted to high technology firms. So, you do have to have a company that is willing to participate being part of that application as well. Also, it’s not required, but you can have an incubator project that is attached to it as well. The reason I’m bringing this to you is that the Vanderburgh Industrial Park that is in existence out on Highway 57, would be a good candidate for that particular type of designation. I’ve talked with the Evansville Industrial Foundation, they are receptive to that. I’ve talked to USI and they are receptive also to participate as the higher education institution to participate in that. I guess, bringing this to you all tonight is to see if you all would like to proceed with this type of application. Basically, what we do is submit this application to the Department of Commerce, they take this in consideration. We submit it in November, then it goes before them in December, and they’ll let us know then if that is a designation to that. We have a company that is interested, we at this point do not have their letter of intent signed, so we cannot release their name to you at this point, but there is a company, a high tech company, that is interested in participating. So, I guess, I bring this, and if there’s any questions, I don’t know if you all had a chance to look over the information that was sent to you regarding this particular application. High tech, just for a matter of record is including; data communications, information technologies or advanced computing, advanced materials or it’s kind of advanced manufacturing, bio-technology, electronic device technology, engineering or laboratory testing related to the development of a product, technology that assists in the assessment or prevention or damage to human health or environment, medical device technology, product research and development, and advanced vehicle technologies. So, that is what they are considering high tech activities that could be taking place in that park.

President Mosby: Commissioner?

Commissioner Fanello: I was just going to let the board know that I met with Judy and Mr. Keeping and Mr. Stallings. Mr. Keeping and Mr. Stallings are both on the Industrial Foundation Board, and I suggested that they come to this board and explain exactly what we had talked about and what was going on, and get the board to sign off on moving forward with it, and, you know, contacting the redevelopment commission to get them together, because I believe they do need to do a resolution–

Judy Weatherholt: Right.

Commissioner Fanello: –regarding a technology park. So, I’m in favor of it, and, hopefully, the rest of the board is.

Judy Weatherholt: Okay.

Commissioner Crouch: I also had spoken to Mrs. Weatherholt and to Mr. Keeping previously. I think when our community has all the ingredients to take advantage of this kind of designation that will promote and put us on the cutting edge of tomorrow, I think we have no alternative but to move forward, and I highly endorse it.

Judy Weatherholt: Thank you. This will be used by the Indiana Department of Commerce as well in their marketing efforts as well. So, if this is declared a designated certified technology park, they will be advocating that from the state level as well, which is a good marketing tool for us.

Commissioner Crouch: How many have been designated?

Judy Weatherholt: I think four so far have been designated. Now, only one is listed on the website, but we have applications, copies of the applications that have been approved, and there’s four of them. I think there’s three cities, and I think there’s maybe, I think they all may be three cities that had to be applicants for it. So, we will actually be the first county I believe.

President Mosby: Is there any other questions? If not, I would say that I would accept a motion that we move forward.

Commissioner Fanello: I would make a motion that Vanderburgh County move forward with the certified technology park and contact the President of the County Redevelopment Commission, and get them to meet and pass a resolution.

Commissioner Crouch: I’ll second, and I received an e-mail about a meeting tomorrow morning. No, am I–

Judy Weatherholt: This is, the meeting that you received a notice about was the county representatives on my board of directors. I want us to meet with all the county representatives. I’ve been going out and doing that with all counties.

Commissioner Crouch: But we might talk about this?

Judy Weatherholt: We could.

Commissioner Crouch: With that meeting tomorrow, since there are two Commissioners on that board, do we need to notify the media or do anything special?

Commissioner Fanello: I don’t know if, because you and I usually are in the same meeting, since we’re both on the board. I don’t know how Patty handles that. If she needs to send out a notice, I’m sure she can send out one.

Judy Weatherholt: I’ve listed them on my website. So, I have a list of those meetings set up, so.

Commissioner Fanello: Okay.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second to move forward. So ordered.

Judy Weatherholt: Thank you.

President Mosby: Thank you.

President Mosby: Next we have a resolution concerning the accessibility of polling places and administration of HAVA funds.

Commissioner Fanello: This is basically the resolution that we talked about when we were talking about our election equipment. The County Council has signed off on this resolution to do what is necessary for us to comply with polling place accessibility standards. If you’ll notice in section five we do need to set up and adopt an ordinance to establish a local advisory council. So, I would ask the County Attorney to move forward with that. Then I would make a motion to approve the joint resolution.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second to approve the joint resolution. So ordered. And that the County Attorney proceed on section five.

President Mosby: Next we have the personnel policy everybody should have in their packet.

Kevin Winternheimer: I e-mailed it to you, or sent it to you. I did not file it for action tonight, I wanted to give you plenty of time to look at it in it’s final form. As you can see, as I stated last week, the body of it will be in the format that would be printed in a handbook. I wanted to make sure that you were comfortable with that format. If you, I will file it Friday for review on next Monday. So, if you have any last minute questions, comments, or concerns let me know.

President Mosby: Okay. Then do we want this on for next week?

Kevin Winternheimer: Yes.

President Mosby: Okay.

President Mosby: Next, Commission contracts, election equipment.

Kevin Winternheimer: Yes. I received the proposed contract sometime Friday. I quickly reviewed it, and I had some concerns about the wording of it. On the first page it reads as though we’re buying it. The rest of the contract reads more like a lease or a license. There are some other specific terms that or provisions that I have a question about. What I’m afraid they may have done is taken their lease contract and just changed the first page to say purchase, because there are provisions in there...just one example is, as I recall that repairs are made to the equipment, they stay the property of the company, and that’s unusual if we are, in fact, buying it why it wouldn’t be our property for any additions or improvements or repairs to the equipment. I had not had a chance to call the company. You may have some questions of your own, but if we could delay this for a week, until I can get with them and maybe clean it up a little.

Commissioner Fanello: Commissioner Mosby, I had about a page and a half of questions which I did speak with Mr. McGinnis on the phone today and also e-mailed him our questions. He was perfectly fine with us deferring it until next Monday and understood that there were probably questions with the contract. I can submit these for the record if need be.

President Mosby: Well, I have a motion to defer until next week.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. We will defer this until next week. So ordered.

President Mosby: Next we have Elite Environmental Services.

Tammy McKinney: This contract is for the removal of some asbestos that we found in the process of renovating the basement bathrooms at the Old Courthouse. I do have this money in my budget.

Commissioner Crouch: Were you able to get other quotes? Or are they the only company that does this?

Tammy McKinney: They are the only...I called IDEM, and they gave me the list of certified, you have certified inspectors and certified contractors, and they were the only ones in Evansville.

Commissioner Crouch: That makes it pretty easy.

Tammy McKinney: It was an easy call.

Commissioner Fanello: I make a motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered.

President Mosby: Is there any public comment? Anybody in the public?

President Mosby: Any old business?

President Mosby: Any new business?

President Mosby: Department head reports. County Engineer, John Stoll.

John Stoll: The first item I have is a request for street acceptance in section two on Charlestown Square on the Lake Subdivision. This is an extension of the road that was accepted at last Monday’s meeting. This is at the northeast quadrant of the Lynch Road, not Lynch Road, the Interstate 164 and the Lloyd Expressway interchange. It’s requested that this street be accepted for maintenance. It’s 602' of Stahl Road.

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered.

John Stoll: Next I have a street acceptance request for the Village at Timber Park Subdivision. This is section five, phase three of that subdivision. This is 299' of Shadwell Drive, 331' of Pigeonbrook Court, and 322' of Halford Drive. It’s requested that these streets also be accepted for maintenance.

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

John Stoll: Then also in that same subdivision, the Village at Timber Park, section five, phase three, I’ve got a request for acceptance of storm sewers located outside of street rights-of-way. This is a request for 220' of 12" concrete pipe that’s located outside of the right-of-way. We’ve received the two dollar a foot fee of $440 for this pipe, so, it’s requested that this pipe be accepted for maintenance.

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

John Stoll: The next two items I have are on Helfrich Hills Subdivision, sections one and two. The first item I have is an encroachment agreement for their subdivision entrance sign to remain in the public right-of-way at the intersection of St. Joe Road and Old Country Way. This is the standard brick subdivision sign that is put up at numerous locations. This encroachment agreement establishes that the homeowners association will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of that sign. It also says that we would have the right to remove it if we needed to have the sign removed for roadway purposes. It’s requested that this encroachment agreement be signed.

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

John Stoll: That’s the standard format to the encroachment agreements that we’ve used in the past. Also on Helfrich Hills I have a request for street acceptance in sections one and two. This is for 2,604' of Old Country Way, and 664' of German Hill Drive.

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

John Stoll: Next I have two letters pertaining to the University Parkway project. The first letter is a letter to INDOT forwarding them copies of the engineers, the engineering firms inspection agreements, which is basically Bernardin Lochmueller’s construction inspection agreement. That inspection agreement is for the amount of $1,266,226. In conjunction with that, we have to submit their fee justification, and several other items, but we just forward that to INDOT right now with the agreements unsigned. INDOT will review the agreements and then send them back to us for final approval. So, it’s requested that the Commissioners sign this letter so that we can forward the agreements to INDOT for their review.

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

John Stoll: I also have a letter that INDOT also needs. It’s the engineer assignment letter that states what personnel Bernardin Lochmueller will assign to the project. Basically it says that Dan Farvardin will oversee the project. Then it lists all of his inspectors, who will also be working on the project. It’s requested that this letter also be signed so that we can forward it to INDOT.

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

John Stoll: In talking to INDOT today, the bid opening for University Parkway is slated for January. We have all the final construction cost estimates and everything, so everything is on track to open the bids in January. The next item I’ve got is in regard to the Stockwell Road culvert project. I got a revised cost estimate from American Consulting last week, and they were estimating that it would cost up to another $175,000 to do this project due to the extra work associated with jacking the pipe underneath the railroad. That’s going to be a requirement of the railroad. They will not allow us to open cut the tracks and install the pipe that way, so we will have to jack the pipe underneath the tracks. There are also some fees associated with, it’s not really a right-of-way purchase, it’s more of a, just a fee the railroad charges for us to put our drainage structure in their right-of-way. That could be at least $30,000, if not $30,000 per pipe for a total of $60,000. All things considered, that’s what led to the consultant coming up with the increased cost of $175,000. So, in regard to that, I’m requesting to go to County Council to transfer $50,000 from the Roth Road culvert account, $35,000 from the Marx Road culvert account, $25,000 from Fischer Road culvert account, and $45,000 from the Broadway Bridge #271 account to the Stockwell Road culvert account. Those just total $155,000, not $175,000 at this time. I figured we would wait and see if we had to do an additional appropriation later to see what their final estimates come in. But, since these were all transfers, that would get the money in immediately, and if it comes back with higher cost estimates again later, then we’ll have to go back for more funds. But, I request approval to go to County Council to transfer all those right now.

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

John Stoll: Next I have a street plan approval request for Heartland Crossing Subdivision. This is section one of that subdivision. This subdivision is located off of Hogue Road, not directly opposite the entrance to Heartland Crossing Subdivision...not Heartland Crossing, I forget the name. It’s Heartland something. Anyway, it’s off of Hogue Road, this is west Eichoff Road, they are only building down to here right now. This is section one, basically, this area right through here. I’ve reviewed the street plans, would request that the street plans be approved. These will be curb and gutter streets with storm sewers, so they meet county standards. Therefore, I request that they be approved.

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

John Stoll: Let me grab my pen. That’s all I have in my report, unless you have anything else for me.

President Mosby: Any questions of the County Engineer? Thank you, John.

John Stoll: Thanks.

President Mosby: County Highway, Dennis.

Dennis Hudnall: Good evening, Dennis Hudnall, County Highway. The only thing I have tonight is Pioneer Rail Corp, I talked to them today about tentatively what date do we want to start on this. They’re kind of indecisive about it, but the one they mentioned the most was the 27^th of October. So, I would like to have permission to close Mill Road from St. Joe to Kratzville with local traffic only. Everyone will have access to...like there is a Kemper Auto Sales, there’s DSM, there’s the Co-Op, there’s a City Creek Subdivision, all of them will have access, but they have access from Kratzville to the railroad track, and the Co-Op would be from St. Joe to the railroad tracks. So, everyone will be able to get to where they’re going. We’re going to put the ad in the paper as such. So, I need permission to go ahead and close that road for the 27^th through the 31^st.

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

Dennis Hudnall: The only other thing I have is my report, if you have any questions.

President Mosby: Any questions of Dennis? Thank you, Dennis.

Dennis Hudnall: Have a good night.

President Mosby: County Attorney, Kevin.

Kevin Winternheimer: Yes, I have a matter that I want to bring to the attention of the Commissioners and discuss, and pardon me if I’m a little bit long, but it seems to be quite involved. To give you a little background, Friday I received a call from Patty asking if I had been following the newspaper accounts and media accounts of what the Election Office was doing regarding the issuance of absentee ballots. I told her, quite frankly, I had not–

Commissioner Crouch: Excuse me. Clerk Abell is out there, and the Election Board attorney, should we have them come in, since it probably... it seems like that would be the fair thing to do.

Kevin Winternheimer: Sure. Sure.

Commissioner Fanello: If they’re still there. Well, let’s proceed, she’s not coming.

President Mosby: Let’s proceed. She’s standing there.

Kevin Winternheimer: Well, in any event, as I was saying that I was contacted by Patty in the Commissioners office on Friday and asked if I had been following the media accounts of the actions of the Election Office and Election Board regarding the processing of absentee ballots. I told her that quite frankly I had not been following it that closely, and she e-mailed me some articles, and I’ve been trying to follow what’s been going in the news media. It has raised some questions and concerns as to how they are handling the processing of the absentee ballots. Just to give you a little background there was a newspaper account, and these are primarily from the websites of the various media organizations. An article by John Martin on October 15^th says;

“Abell said she confirmed the inaccurate information by running background checks on people who sent in applications. Abell made a motion that the entire list of people who have applied for absentee ballots be sent to the Prosecutor’s office for review.”

On the Channel 14 website of October 19, 2003, she is quoted as saying;

“We’ve found large blocks of people that registered to vote and requested an absentee the very same day and have never voted before, said Abell. I ran the names, cross referenced it with the court system and found several people, some with active warrants on it.”

In that same article the Police Chief was quoted as saying;

“‘Anyone found violating the law could face legal trouble’, said Evansville Police Chief, David Gulledge. ‘It could be anywhere from misdemeanors to felony. It could also be a federal crime, if it involves the mail.”

In an Evansville Courier article of October 18^th by John Martin, in there it states:

“A few absentee ballots that already have been cast are also in the hands of the police, said Abell.”

Indiana Code 3-11-10-10 provides;

“During the period that absentee ballots are being received, each County Election Board shall keep the ballots in cabinets, boxes, or a room upon which there are two locks, one for each appointed member of the board. If a member cannot be present each day, then that member shall designate someone from the member’s political party to be present with the key to the lock at the time the ballots are secured.”

If the article is accurate, I would question why ballots may be in the hands of the Police Department instead of under secure lock and key as provided by state law. Concerning background checks on absentee ballot applications, Indiana Code 3-11-10-4 provides that;

“Upon receipt of an absentee ballot, the County Election Board, or the Absentee Voter Board in the office of the Circuit Court Clerk shall immediately examine the signature of the voter to determine it’s genuineness. If a member of the Absentee Voter Board questions whether a signature on a ballot, envelope, or transmitted affidavit is genuine, the matter shall be referred to the County Election Board for consideration.”

Indiana Code 3-11-10-5 provides that;

“A County Election Board unanimously finds that a signature on a ballot, envelope or transmitted affidavit is not genuine, the Board shall write upon the ballot, envelope or transmitted affidavit the words “The County Election Board has questioned the genuineness of the signature of this voter.” These ballots shall be delivered to the polls on election day, under section 12 of this chapter with instructions to verify the voters signature under section 12.”

The voters signature, under section 15 of the chapter IC3-11-10-6 provides that;

“If the County Election Board is unable to unanimously determine whether the signature on a ballot, envelope is genuine, the Board shall write upon the ballot the words “Signature disputed”. The Board shall then deliver all disputed ballot envelopes, together with any evidence of a documentary nature presented before the Board, to the proper precinct at the same time that the undisputed ballots are delivered.”

IC3-11-10-7 provides that after receipt of the disputed ballots, under section six of this chapter, a precinct election board determines whether each disputed ballot will be voted or rejected. There are, or I’ve received reports of, or questions about whether there are being undertaken police investigations of voters without cause to believe that some crime has been committed. My question is under these investigations, and there is rumor that all absentee ballot applications are being questioned, I don’t know if that’s true. Is there a basis to believe that some crime may have been committed before an investigation has begun? Indiana Code 3-14-3-18 provides that;

“It is a crime to influence a voter by trying to begin a criminal prosecution in order to influence a voter.”

My concern in this regard is three fold. Number one, are the right agencies, ie: the Election Board actually making these decisions? And are the correct and proper procedures being followed in making the decision as to whether a voter should be able to vote or not? Secondly, is doing background checks having a chilling effect on some people voting? Third, are the proper criteria being used to determine a residency? If you may remember, a number of years ago before Evan Bayh ran for Governor there was a question as to his residency. He lived in Washington, D.C. for 16 months, worked there, did everything else, had a home there. That issue went to the State Supreme Court and they said regardless of the fact that he lived in D.C. for 16 months, he was, in fact, a resident of the state of Indiana and could run for Governor. My questions would also be are the records that the Election Office is using from Voter Registration, are they 100% accurate and up-to-date before denying someone to vote. Where someone “lives” may not be the only criteria. It is where they are a resident that truly matters. You may live one place and be a resident of another. As regards to questioning signatures, do they have the necessary training to tell whether a signature is proper or not before disqualifying a voter? If you’ve ever seen signatures that you may have done from a number of years ago, your signature may be quite different, although that signature is, in fact, yours. It may be different from your signature today. My concern in that regard is as regards older voters. My own father’s signature used to be quite distinct. Now it’s a C with a line as he’s grown quite elderly. I would question whether older voters are, in fact, their signatures are being unduly questioned in that regard. I was made aware of a rumor that a person 40 years old went to the office of, the Election Office to vote, and was told that he could not vote until he produced a birth certificate showing the correct month and date of his birth, although the record showed that he was born in 1963. Being 40 years old and the criteria is whether you are 18 or not, he was told to get a birth certificate which cost him probably five bucks at the Health Department. So, it cost him five dollars to vote, we do not charge people to vote and should not charge people to vote. Should not make them pay expenses for having to vote. If he was not, if there’s not a question as to his age, whether he was at least 18 years old, I would question if this rumor is, in fact, true, why that person was told they had to get their birth certificate at a cost before they could vote. Questioning voters, or not allowing the vote if the middle initial, address or birth date is not 100% accurate, I would question and make sure that we were following proper procedure on that. News 25 reported that the County Clerk, Marsha Abell, says there are about 30 applications for absentee ballots with several mistakes, including a wrong address, misspelled names, incorrect dates of birth. Abell requested a meeting of the EPD and the Prosecutor’s office in this regard. Under 42USC1971 the Voting Rights Act states, and I’m going to read this to make sure I get it accurate.

“No person acting under code or law shall a) in determining whether any individual is qualified under state laws or laws to vote in any election apply any standard practice or procedure different from the standard practices and procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish or similar political subdivision who have been found by state officials to be qualified to vote. B) you may not deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration or other act requisite to voting if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such an individual is qualified under state law to vote in such election.”

Also there was some questions rising about denying people the right to vote absentee if they have moved. Along with that what is the purpose of doing the background checks? Is the Clerk sure that she’s using information in her office as County Clerk, is she sure that 100% of that information is accurate? In the Courier website she is quoted as saying that she ran background checks on 30 people and had, and one had 15 warrants on him. I would question what the issue is with regard to the warrants. My understanding of the law regarding criminals voting is that regardless, you may have committed a felony in the past, you are allowed to vote unless you are currently incarcerated for more than 30 days. Whether that person had 15 warrants or not, I would question what validity that had to any kind of determination of whether that person was to be issued an absentee ballot. Again are we sure that Voter Registration records that are being checked are up-to-date and accurate before rejecting applications? Is it possible that when someone shows I.D. as requested and when that’s compared to a Voter Registration application that there isn’t maybe a typo in one or both of those documents? As regarding whether people moved, if you still live in the city, you may be able to go back to your precinct and vote one last time. As regards to whether or not we are even sending out ballots, Indiana Code 3-11-4-18 provides:

“If a voter satisfies any of the following the County Election Board shall, at the request of the voter, mail the official ballot, postage pre-paid to the voter at the address stated in the application that same day.”

The statutes place the election process under the Vanderburgh County Election Board. This Commission does not have any jurisdiction over the election. My questions in this regard is have these changes in practices and policies that we’ve seen for this election been, in fact, approved by the Election Board? I don’t know. I’ve talked briefly with Don Vowels about this and it would seem as though most of these practices and policies have not been voted on by the Board. I could be in error on that, and stand to be corrected, but in my conversation with him Friday, it seems as though the only policy that the Board has actually acted on was turning over all applications to the Evansville Police Department. As a way to kind of sum this up, and let me add one more thing, I talked to Ms. Kristi Robertson with the State Election Office, and was told that these practices that she has been reading about in the newspaper, and that I said may be rumor, but may or may not be true, that if true they are, the term she used, “highly unusual”. That the way the process usually works is a check is made to make sure that when they receive an application that the voter is in fact a registered voter. Then if there is a problem or there is a question as to whether or not the voter is a qualified voter, a challenge process as provided by state law to challenge that vote. But to do background checks was at the least highly unusual part of this process on people. My concern is that also that we do not want to interfere with any proper investigation of alleged voter fraud. That is entirely a separate matter. What I’m talking about is apparently a process or procedure that has been implemented following those allegations to make sure that process is entirely lawful. That process is unrelated to the issue of finding voter fraud that may or may not be happening out there. My concern is that the Election Office and the Election Board, the agency which is responsible for the election process, is following state and federal law and not denying anyone their right to vote, or inadvertently putting a chilling effect on a person’s right to vote. I’m sure everyone here would agree that many Americans have fought and died for this basic, fundamental right to vote. It is most imperative that the law be followed in all respects, and that an attempt to prevent voter fraud that we are not unintentionally discouraging voting in this coming election. With such serious questions being asked or alleged, I believe it to be imperative that the Election Board promptly review the entire process that is going on with applications for absentee ballots. I contacted Ms. Abell on Friday and scheduled a meeting for this morning to meet with her. I received a fax, not a fax, but an e-mail this morning that said she wasn’t able to meet with me and directed me to the Board attorney who she said was out of town. I see he’s back now. What I’m asking the Commission for tonight is this, is for permission to officially contact the Election Board, all members, ask for an emergency meeting to answer these questions and allegations and others that the public may have in regard to this process, review the process, and make sure the county and the Election Office is in total compliance with federal and state law regarding the issuance of absentee ballots. If they are not and do not, take whatever action may be necessary to obtain compliance with federal and state law. I’m informed that Monday is some sort of deadline as regards these absentee applications, so, as you can see, time is of the essence. I’m not saying that anything here is improper or has not been done according to the law, but there are allegations out there, there are questions and concerns out there that, I think, in this most serious of matters being an election for public office that need to be addressed. Need to be addressed by the Election Board as a whole, have their process reviewed and have these questions answered. That is my request, that you allow me to contact the board, make the request that they meet and review the process to make sure that we are, the county is, in 100% compliance with the law.

Les Shively: Mr. President, can I respond?

President Mosby: Let me take questions from the Commissioners first, and then I’ll give you a chance to respond to whatever.

Commissioner Fanello: I would just ask, Kevin, is your concern that the county is being placed in a liability situation where we could get sued if these practices were not lawful? Is that the concern here?

Kevin Winternheimer: Well, it’s a matter of prioritization. I guess, number one, my concern with the most important right, that being the right to vote, that we are not unintentionally interfering with someone’s right to vote. That we are following the letter of the law. Secondarily, there is a concern that we are alienating any group, or inadvertently discouraging any person from a right to vote, that, yes, we could end up in litigation over this. Now, it would be the Election Board that would be sued, but it would be the county and the county taxpayers that would have to defend that and pay any sort of judgement along that line.

President Mosby: Commissioner? Mr. Shively, I’ll let you go ahead and speak.

Les Shively: Mr. President, members of the Board of Commissioners, my name is Les Shively. I am the attorney for the County Election Board. First of all, maybe there was a miscommunication, Mr. Winternheimer, but I was informed that you were informed that even though I was out of town today, that I could be reached by phone, that all you had to do was contact my office, and I would be in touch with you. I contacted my office starting at 8:00 this morning through 5:00 today at least a half a dozen times and there was no message from you, Mr. Winternheimer.

Kevin Winternheimer: Can I address that?

Les Shively: Well, let me, I didn’t interrupt you, let me finish.

Kevin Winternheimer: Okay.

Les Shively: Okay. Second of all I’ve known Kevin, Mr. Winternheimer, for a long time, and have immense respect for him, and I would think he has respect for me. He knows that I represent the County Election Board, and if he has any questions about their operation, it should be dealt with in an attorney to attorney stand point. I think that should be exhausted first before we, from Mr. Winternheimer and his own initiative calls for a special meeting. Not withstanding that fact, let me tell you what happened at the last Election Board meeting. Certain irregularities were brought to the attention of the full Election Board, consisting of a Democratic appointed member, a Republican appointed member, and the County Clerk. After those matters were brought to the full attention of the board, and after several minutes of questions, the board voted unanimously to refer these irregularities to the Evansville Police Department for investigation. Mr. Winternheimer has read to you many, many statutes, many of which I am very familiar with. Let me just say in short, the statutes that govern absentee ballots talk about the jurisdiction of the Election Board with regard to signatures that are in question, signatures that are in doubt. The problem that manifested itself in the information that was presented to the full board has to do with the application, not the ballot. Some serious matters, the potential election laws that may be violated. It’s been turned over to the Evansville Police Department, Sergeant Fitzsimmons of the Evansville Police Department heads up that investigation, and I suspect that investigation will proceed in it’s natural course, and whatever results will be dictated by the evidence and the work by the Evansville Police Department. As for the matters that Mr. Winternheimer refers to on websites of media sources, I know nothing of those. Certainly more than happy to cooperate with Mr. Winternheimer and his inquiry, and provide as much information as possible. But, I think it’s important to keep in mind that when our election laws were devised, and the County Election Board was created pursuant to those statutes, it specifically set forth the autonomous role of the County Election Board in running and managing and operating elections. If there is a problem, if there is a concern, it should be brought to the Election Board. The Election Board will meet again October 29^th. If there is a request by the two party chairs or other interested parties to have an earlier meeting, certainly that can be done by a request to the board chair, the Election Board chair, Mr. Foster, and that can certainly be considered. But I want to reiterate that all that has taken place thus far is the follow through, if you will, by the Evansville Police Department, and by the way, let me also say this, all that was directed to the Evansville Police Department is to give them what the Election Office information they had, the discrepancy data they had, and to decide for themselves, independently, whether to carry the investigation further. The Evansville Police Department has made that decision independent from the Election Board. Present at the Election Board meeting when this decision was made, as well as a representative from the Evansville Police Department being present, were both chairpersons of the respective political parties of this county. The Republican chair was there, the Democratic chair. No one objected to this procedure. What’s being done right now is in furtherance and in compliance with the resolution and the action passed unanimously by the Election Board. I’m more than happy to meet with Mr. Winternheimer. I will adjust my schedule, as I was prepared to do today, to meet with Mr. Winternheimer to discuss these matters. But, I would simply say to you all it does not serve the people of this community well if, in fact, there is going to be some sort of edict from this Board telling the County Election Board when to meet, and what to do. I will assure you that even though tomorrow I’m supposed to be at an all day hearing, I will make time, Mr. Winternheimer, to meet with you, at a time that meets with your convenience, to discuss your concerns so that all the appropriate governmental agencies can resolve any concerns there might be, so we can preserve the integrity of these elections. But, if tonight there is some sort of command, or some sort of edict to tell the Election Board what to do, again, that would not be in the best interest of this community. I would certainly hope that the Commissioners would step back and look at the total process. Your concerns can be addressed without throwing out the system that’s been set up by our General Assembly.

Kevin Winternheimer: Okay, Mr. President, if I may.

President Mosby: Go ahead.

Kevin Winternheimer: First of all, I have a copy of the e-mail, Les, and it says, from Clerk Abell, and it says;

“He, referring to you, is in Indy today, but will call you from his cell phone.”

I didn’t have your cell phone number, but it says that you would call me. Just to clarify that point. But, my question, I guess, my next question is, is there something significant about Monday as far as voter applications for absentee ballots? I’ve heard that there is, that they’re not going to be issued after that date due to the election is the following week.

Les Shively: That very well may be. I don’t have my handy dandy little cheat calendar to tell me, but I’m sure we’re getting close to the election day.

Kevin Winternheimer: If that’s the case, then waiting until the next Election Board meeting would be superfluous if people are applying. Let me ask you this, are people being denied absentee ballots based on a review by persons in the Election Office of things like signatures, birth dates, things like that?

Les Shively: I am not aware of any of that activity.

President Mosby: I would like to bring that up right now.

Les Shively: In fact, if I may, the only one thing that I am aware of is the fact that there is some sort of, I wouldn’t say a break down of process, but an added step in the process that I’ve been made aware of, at least we were all made aware of it at the last Election Board meeting, for some reason absentee ballot applications are going down to the Voter Registration Office, which is an unnecessary step. Then they hang on to them and bring them in large groups. As you know, with our computer system, the Voter Registration records are on the system, and so the application should have been delivered directly to the Election Office to process them from there. However, that’s my understanding that they’re being carted down to the Registration Office, and they sit there, they do a check, which is not provided for in the system, and is unnecessary, which is slowing down the process. That’s the only thing that I’m aware of.

Kevin Winternheimer: Is a background check being done before the ballots are sent out?

Les Shively: I’m not aware of any background checks.

Kevin Winternheimer: See that’s my problem. That’s why I wanted to meet with the Clerk. Because I don’t like, nothing against the media, but I don’t like relying on media reports or rumors, and I wanted to see what the process is, because I frankly don’t know.

Les Shively: I’m more than happy to arrange a meeting with you and Marsha. I think Marsha would like to have me present. I’m more than happy to do that ASAP. No one is interested in doing anything that discourages people from participating in this very important election. The only thing that I’ve understood that my client is involved in doing is cooperating with the request for information from Sergeant Fitzsimmons and his team. I’m not aware of any of these other matters, and if there is some concerns that you have, let’s get together quickly, let’s get together with the Clerk and let’s get these straightened out so the public is–

Kevin Winternheimer: If I might again, if a person is, if you have received, whether by mail, or via the Voters Registration office or anything, a request for an absentee ballot, is that being sent out the same day? I don’t understand why there is this necessity for a background check, or some kind of other check before that ballot is being sent out.

Les Shively: I’m not aware that that is being done, Mr. Winternheimer. As I said, I think, if you have these concerns, then let’s meet ASAP, let’s bring the Clerk in. We can have the meeting wherever you would like to have it, possibly the Election Office where you can be there and see the process and witness it yourself, and we can certainly allay any concerns, alleviate any concerns that you have. I would suggest that be done sooner rather than later.

President Mosby: Kevin, I’m going to give you a scenario, and I run across this late this afternoon, so I’ve not had a chance to verify with the participant. I have an uncle who was called, I’m going to say late last week and was told that his birth date was wrong on his application for an absentee ballot. He was called by the Election Office to tell him that he would not be sent a ballot because his birth date was wrong. He asked them what was wrong with the birth date and they said we can’t tell you. He said well if it’s the birth date I put on there, it’s the same birth date I’ve used for 70 years, because he said I’m 70 years old. So, in the meantime, they told him that he had to correct this problem. That he had to go back to the Registration office, correct this, and send it back to the Election Office. Which he did call the Registration office, verified that he did have the correct birth date on the application, and it went back up. But, he was told he would not be sent a ballot until he came down and corrected this. This gentleman is 70 years old. Somebody 70 years old could have said forget it, and probably would not have voted. Now, I have not talked to my uncle particular, I will in the morning, because he has asked for me to call him, but this came through my cousin. They were very disturbed about it. To think that his birth date was wrong. It was not wrong. He’s been voting for 50 years.

Les Shively: Obviously, I don’t know anything about that, but I think–

President Mosby: Well, that’s what’s going on.

Les Shively: Well, with all due respect, Mr. Mosby, that’s what you are hearing is going on. All I know is what happened at the Election Board meeting on last Tuesday, I believe it was. All I know is that Mr. Winternheimer wanted to see the County Clerk regarding Election Board practices or something of that nature. I was informed of this late Saturday. I had already had to be in Indianapolis for Board of Law Examiners. Again, I’m making myself available, and making the Clerk available ASAP to get this straightened out, because we certainly want to get to the bottom of this. Again, the way the office operates, should be the way it’s always operated. The fact that there is a police investigation going on at the same time should not interfere with the voters process. If there’s a problem here, or there’s a miscommunication, I want to help facilitate to get that taken care of.

Commissioner Crouch: I think we would all agree that fair and impartial elections are a fundamental right of our system of government. We all want to take whatever steps necessary to ensure that that happens. I also think that the Election Board’s attorney’s request is not unreasonable, and I would like to move that the Election Board attorney set up a meeting with the County Attorney and County Clerk at least to explore some of the County Attorney’s concerns.

Commissioner Fanello: I’ll second that motion.

President Mosby: There’s a motion and a second. So ordered. I would have preferred there be an Election Board meeting, but–

Kevin Winternheimer: Well, I was going to say that is a separate consideration, if you want a motion on that. If, in fact, there still are some questions or concerns after I meet with the Election Board attorney and the County Clerk, I would like the authority to proceed with whatever is reasonably necessary to correct any problems with the process. I again want to emphasize this has nothing to do with voter fraud. If somebody is committing an illegal act in the act of voting, everybody in this room agrees that ought to be investigated, and that is a terrible situation. However, I want to make sure that our, our being the county’s, reaction to what may be out there isn’t depriving anyone of their legitimate right to vote, or in some manner discouraging them by some practice such as you relayed, Mr. President, from undertaking their fundamental right to vote. If it be your desire, I would request a second motion along that regard.

Commissioner Fanello: I will make a motion to that effect, based on the fact that, let me say it this way first, I have no desire to deliver any edicts to the Election Board or tell the Election Board what to do, but I do have a concern for the taxpayers of Vanderburgh County, and I’m elected to represent everyone in Vanderburgh County. I do not want to see any liability situations come out of this, so I would like for the attorney to take whatever steps necessary to correct whatever measures, along with, in cooperation with the Election Board attorney and the Election Board. From the perspective that we are all here to protect the county’s interest and the taxpayers interest.

Commissioner Crouch: I’m not going to second that motion. I think that to do that before the County Attorney meets with the Election Board attorney really is–

Commissioner Fanello: Well, we don’t have time to come back and issue another motion.

Commissioner Crouch: We certainly could have an emergency meeting. We’ve done that before.

Commissioner Fanello: If you’re willing to do that, I’m most certainly willing to come in any time this week and have one.

Les Shively: May I suggest to you this again, I don’t want....I appreciate your concern, Commissioner Fanello, for the taxpayers, there are a lot of issues that I’ve been involved with this Commission group before that I’ve brought to your attention taxpayers concerns and I don’t want to go back through that litany, but let me just suggest this to you, that we’re walking a very fine line here, and it’s not....sometimes you can have self-fulfilling prophecies. I think if we take this one step at a time, let’s see what we can get accomplished tomorrow. I would be very surprised if we can’t resolve this tomorrow. Because if all of a sudden we see a situation where the Commissioners are requesting very strenuously a special meeting, and, of course, we already have all the media attention here this evening as it is, you may have a self-fulfilling prophecy in claims and lawsuits that have no merit that you’re going to have to defend for the sake of defending them. I think that we really need to exhaust this opportunity tomorrow to work this out. I think that will be in the best interest of the taxpayers in the long run.

Commissioner Fanello: And I would just–

President Mosby: If I understand your motion right, it’s to have the meeting with Mr. Shively and the Clerk–

Commissioner Fanello: Exactly.

President Mosby: –first, and if that does not come to a conclusion, then to have the meeting with the Election Board.

Commissioner Fanello: Right, I mean, I would hope that you wouldn’t get to that point. I agree with you, we are walking a very fine line. So, I would hope we wouldn’t get to that point, but if you basically heard what I said, I do want you two to meet first, work this out, but I would like to have the County Attorney have the option of moving forward with whatever direction he feels is necessary to protect the interests of this county.

President Mosby: I will second your motion. So ordered. First being that you would meet with the Clerk and Mr. Shively, and then secondly, if it came to the fact that we had to go to the Election Board, that we would go to the Election Board.

Kevin Winternheimer: If I may, while you’re here, when do you want to meet? Anytime after 8:00.

Les Shively: Here’s, I’m going to have to go talk to Marsha, but here’s the only time I can meet, if this will work out with you, if we can do it during the lunch hour.

Kevin Winternheimer: Anytime, anywhere. We can meet at Marsha’s office is fine with me too.

Les Shively: Okay, we may have to work out the logistics. I’m going to be in a hearing in Warrick County. I’m going to break, I’ve got another attorney that I’m sort of second chair on this. I’m going to try to break away and get it done over the noon hour with you, if I can.

Kevin Winternheimer: That’s fine, at Marsha’s office. If there’s a change, somebody let me know.

Les Shively: I will. I will.

President Mosby: Are there any other questions?

Les Shively: It’s going to be a long day tomorrow.

President Mosby: There being no other questions, is that all you had on your report?

Kevin Winternheimer: That’s it, but I just want to remind everybody that while Mr. Shively is present, that you know people have requested absentee ballots because they are unavailable, essentially, on election day. I do not want to have to answer to the voter who said I didn’t get my ballot. I didn’t get a chance to vote, because of some procedural, minor problem that may be out there, or minor irregularity that as was spoken to in the federal statute. If they’re going to be out of town, they may be out of town very soon, and they may not be back until everything is over. So, that’s why my urgency is out there. We need to get these ballots to people who are registered to vote, have them come in, and then if there’s a problem, there is a disqualification process, a challenge process can be undertaken. But, if the person is gone and out of town, I don’t know what you do for them.

President Mosby: Thank you. Any other questions?

Les Shively: Thank you.

President Mosby: Thank you.

Les Shively: See you tomorrow.

President Mosby: Superintendent of County Buildings.

Tammy McKinney: I need to add a consent item. The Sheriff has some computers that need to be surplused. These computers are not useable and this Saturday they are having a computer day over in the back 40, and I wanted to put this in tonight’s meeting so that I could take those over there to get rid of them, so I don’t have to hang on to them.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to add to consent items.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered.

Tammy McKinney: Other than that I don’t have anything.

President Mosby: Okay.

President Mosby: Burdette Park, Gary.

Gary Hohman: Yes, Gary Hohman, Burdette Park. You have been supplied, in your packet, the recommendations provided to you by the Burdette Park Advisory Board recommending the rental rates for the year 2005 and 2006. The reason we are needing those, as you recollect, this building is being rented two years in advance. We cannot enter a reservation until the rental rates have been set. The rental rates that they propose to you is a 15% increase over the rates that we’ve been operating on for 2003 and 2004.

Commissioner Fanello: I’m going to request from the Board if we could hold this for one week. I would like to do a little bit more analysis on this. I’m not sure that I agree with a 15% increase. I would like to hold for one week, if that pleases the Board.

Commissioner Crouch: Is that a motion?

Commissioner Fanello: Motion.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: So ordered. Hold for one week.

Gary Hohman: Other than our work report that’s all we have tonight, sir.

President Mosby: Any questions? Thank you, Gary.

Gary Hohman: Thank you.

President Mosby: Soil and Water.

Norma Duckworth: Norma Duckworth, from Soil and Water. I just have a couple of things. One thing is we’re still doing Rule Five inspections, and those are going pretty well. We have added, when we sent out the site evaluations, we’ve added a cover letter, and informational packet on some of the more common practices, and how they are put in and where they are appropriate. It was voiced to us by several people that this might be a help, and it also explains more about what the site evaluation actually means. So, that is something we have added to that. What you have there is some before pictures and on-going pictures of the stabilization of the banks at Howell Wetlands. That project was completed a couple of days ago, so I hope to be bringing you some completed pictures soon. It should make quite a difference in the amount of soil leaving the property. The second set of pictures, well, I think there is just one sheet there, is the beginning of the stabilization of a pasture area that was losing a tremendous amount of soil from the zoo. They have also completed that project. I’m wanting to get out there and get some pictures of that. It’s going to make quite a difference, and it will hold the soil, also keep a lot of the nutrients, let them break down before they are leaving the site, and then they go into a small wetland before they are actually leaving the property. Those were both projects were done with us and with Clean Water Indiana money. So, hopefully, next month I’ll have you completed pictures of that. In all of those projects we got a lot of cooperation from a lot of people, so it was a good community project. I also included, I know you get it, but the, I know you get lots of things, so our newsletter, and one of the things that I wanted to point out was that the Scott Township Park, we have been brought in to work with them. It’s a 38 and a half acre park, and we’re advising them on soil issues and timber, or bringing in personnel that can, if we don’t have that capability, and vegetative cover. Also working with them on their erosion control practices of putting in the roads and starting the building and that kind of thing. So, that’s some of our projects that are going on right now that I wanted to bring to your attention. You have our reports, do you have any questions?

President Mosby: Any questions? Thank you very much.

Norma Duckworth: Thank you.

President Mosby: Ozone. I don’t see anybody.

Commissioner Fanello: I make a motion to accept the Ozone Officer’s report.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered.

President Mosby: Consent items, with the amendment.

Commissioner Fanello: Commissioner Mosby, I have one more amendment to the consent items. I received in the mail today the performance and payment bond for Williams Brothers Construction, Inc. The Auditor will file this in their records, so I just wanted to make that part of the record and the consent items.

President Mosby: Okay.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second to add to consent items. So ordered.

Commissioner Fanello: I would make a motion to approve all the consent items.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered.

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

REZONING BOARD

OCTOBER 20, 2003

The Vanderburgh County Rezoning Board met in session this 20^th day of October, 2003 in Room 307 of the Civic Center Complex with President David Mosby presiding. The rezoning petitions were heard during the regular Commission meeting, and began at 6:42 p.m.

President Mosby: That will bring us to rezonings.

President Mosby: We have one first reading. First reading of rezonings, VC-17-2003, petitioner, Peter M. McCullough, address 1314 Tupman Road, request change from Agricultural to R-3.

Commissioner Fanello: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second to adopt and move to final reading. So ordered. Or Area Plan and final reading. That is all of the rezonings.

Unidentified: Oh, man.

President Mosby: That’s it, no final readings.

Unidentified: Are you ready for some football?

President Mosby: Monday Night Football. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

Commissioner Fanello: So moved.

Commissioner Crouch: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. So ordered.

(The meeting was adjourned at 6:44 p.m.)

CONSENT ITEMS:

         Jail Expenses:

         James L. Shireman $55,000

         Evansville Water & Sewer Utility $18,113.46

         Travel Requests:

         Health Department         Supt. of Buildings           Commissioners

         County Assessor

         Employment Changes:

         Circuit Court                   Co-Op Extension            Coroner

         Knight Assessor             County Clerk                   Burdette Park

         Prosecutor

         Commissioners:

         Escrow Agreement for Williams Brothers Construction (Jail Project)

         Performance and Payment Bonds for Williams Brothers Construction.

         County Treasurer:

         Submit Monthly Report for September 2003.

         Weights and Measures:

         Addendum #11 to Lease Agreement with Executive Inn.

         Sheriff:

         Submit Surplus Letter for Computers.

         Submit Weekly Jail and Community Corrections Reports.

         Those in Attendance:

         David W. Mosby             Catherine Fanello           Suzanne M. Crouch

         Bill Fluty                          Kevin Winternheimer      Tammy McKinney

         Madelyn Grayson           Phil Lawrence                 Judy Weatherholt

         John Stoll                        Dennis Hudnall               Les Shively

         Gary Hohman                 Norma Duckworth Others Unidentified

         Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

David W. Mosby, President

Catherine Fanello, Vice President

Suzanne M. Crouch, Member

Recorded and transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.