[Southsider2k12]

Pay special attention to who is trying to buy the office, and who actually has a plan for being an effective elected official. This is par for the course in the McKee camp as they outspent their opponents 6:1 in the school board election last fall.

http://thenewsdispatch.com/articles/2011/0...fa910801091.txt

Mayoral candidates spend thousands in advertising

By Matt Field
Staff Writer
Published: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 5:09 PM CDT
MICHIGAN CITY - Mayoral candidates have raised more than $79,000 in 2011, spending thousands on ads, signs and other expenses ahead of the May 3 primary.

According to Bob McKee’s campaign’s pre-primary campaign finance report, the candidate out-fundraised his opponents, taking in about $29,700 from Jan 1 and April 8. Joie Winski came in second, raising about $15,530 in the same period.

Like other candidates, both spent a substantial portion of what they raised. McKee, for instance, spent more than $28,000, leaving himself with about $1,100 in cash and investments at the close of the reporting period.

McKee could not be reached for comment.

Winski commissioned at least one poll in the race, but wouldn’t share the results. She didn’t have much to say about being outspent rougly two to one by McKee.

“I wouldn’t say that money is everything and there’s still two weeks to go,” she said.

Coming in last in fundraising was Jim LaRocco, raising about $5,300 between Jan 1 and April 15.

LaRocco said he isn’t concerned about being drowned out in the high-cost race for name recognition, in which candidates have spent thousands on advertising. While McKee spent at least $3,900 on newspaper advertising alone in 2011, LaRocco listed a total of roughly $3,300 in campaign expenses.

LaRocco said he’ll know on election night if his low budget campaign strategy pays off. He suggested that being outspent thus far by his opponents isn’t a blow to his chances in what he characterized as an unpredictable race.

“It’s going to be interesting,” he said. “I don’t think the normal campaing is going to hold this time just because there’s so many people in this time”

John Jones who raised about $14,900 from Feb. 17 to April 8, said some donors might be sitting out the primary.

“It’s a tough thing raising money,” he said. “It’s even tougher when there’s five candidates.”

Ron Meer predicted he’ll meet his goal of raising $20,000 in the campaign. He reported raising about $13,300 from Jan. 1 to April 8.

“I think that probably everybody’s campaign will have some more funds come in yet,” he said.

Meer and Jones both started out with about $2,500 in cash on hand at the beginning of their respective reporting periods.

While the other candidates, all Democrats, face a tough primary, Republican Keith Harris has no primary opponent. He raised about $600 between Feb. 18 and April 8.

“I don’t really need to right now,” he said. “I don’t need to worry about those funds until after the primary.”

The Common Council candidates who submitted reports raised less money than the mayoral candidates. Third Ward council candidate Ron Hamilton Jr., a Democrat, led the pack, reporting about $4,500 in contributions and receipts from February to April, much of it in the form of a loan to himself.

Gale Neulieb raised about $6,000 from Jan. 1 to April 8, leading the pack of Democratic contenders in race for city clerk. Mike Dempsey came in second, reporting about $3,600 in contributions and receipts from Jan. 1 to April 15. Michael Palmer reported raising about $600 from Feb. 18 to April 8.

[UTBMC]

“Pay special attention to who is trying to buy the office”…

You should hold those who voted accountable. Or are you suggesting people were paid to vote for a certain candidate or paid to not vote for a candidate, or how exactly does one buy an office or seat in the booming metropolis of M.C.? What is your maximum allowable fund raising threshold where you would not accuse a candidate of buying an office?

Fund raising by candidates has and continues to be a variable in the political system and is necessary, and it requires disclosure. Bob McKee, Ron Meer, Joie Winski, or none of the candidates created this system or necessity at all. Some candidates are more effective than others in fundraising and are also more effective in investing those funds, which help the candidates reach successful outcomes and their ultimate goals, along with performance in the candidate forums, door-to-door campaigning, “one’s plan for being an effective elected official”, and other variables.

[Southsider2k12]

Here's the issue with that.

In this town, money buys media influence. How many other candidates have had parts of their platform as front page news? Funny, it is just the one who has spent almost $4000 at the same newspaper. Where are the other 5 candidates front page stories? The funny thing is that I know for a fact that it isn't because the other candidates haven't been trying. There are plenty of stories out there that haven't been reported, which just happen to go with the candidates that haven't spent money. Radio in this town isn't any different, especially on the AM dial.

[Southsider2k12]

That all sounded a little snarly, so I am going to clarify.

I think from the beginning the McKee campaign it has been the one I want to see win the least. I think they are full of holes, both in platform, and in ethics. I'd rather see a John Jones win and continue the status quo than to see McKee win.

First up, the school board campaign run by McKee had all of the feelings of a practice run for the mayoral campaign. I also do not like our politicians being involved in non-partisan races. Our school system was set up on purpose to be free of local political influence as much as possible. I don't like we are getting more and more politicians involved in these races. I'm not a big fan of people like the head of the Democratic party running for seats that are supposed to be free of politics. I am also not a fan of office holding politicians running those campaigns. I believe it is unethically stepping over of the intended set up of the school board. It also had all of the makings of a quid pro quo, for him to get her elected, and her to get him elected.

Secondly then having a sitting school board member as the campaign manager of a political campaign is fraught with ethical problems, as well as bad judgement. All a school board member has to do is read the code behind them as they sit up on the dais when they have their meetings. It very clearly states that they don't want board members playing politics. Not only is chairing a political campaign a violation of that, it is also a slap in the face of the separation of the school system and City. It is a flat out conflict of interest.

Getting into the platform and history itself, the scholarship program is a dangerous idea the way McKee has it set out. I know a lot of people have criticized the program as being woefully underfunded. I am going to go out on a limb and assume that it is funded properly (which I have my doubts about). My biggest problem with the program is that it has the potential to either stick Michigan City taxpayers with a big bill, or to become insolvent and sink the very kids it is supposed to save. Here is the problem, there is no secure funding source for his program. It is entirely dependent on a very volatile source of revenue, which is Blue Chip money. It was just a few years ago that Four Winds moved in and and took a chunk of revenue away from Michigan City. A large measure of our current budgetary problems are due directly to that fact. Now McKee wants to offer a scholarship program based on that instability? What happens if another casino opens up in the area and takes funds away? What happens if Blue Chip itself gets a better offer elsewhere and closes down in 10 or 15 years? Who pay for the program then? Any scholarship program has got to be with dedicated and protected funds. It has to be a fund that doesn't depend on the economy, or some other questionable flow of money. McKee of all people should know better than that because he has seen first hand what happens when that exact same funding formula dries up. The scholarship program is dangerous and irresponsible, all at the same time.

The other big problem is the spending caps that his council passed, and that he is now touting as a good thing. Spending caps are a terrible idea. They do not recognize that economies are cyclical and volatile. They remove the ability to adjust to changes. They essentially assume that governing bodies are irresponsible and incapable of making smart budgetary decisions. Have no doubt that once the fulls caps are in effect, there will be city services cut, and it will be the fault of the council that McKee was on. We have seen what spending caps can do right here in Michigan City, when we were forced to fire some very good teachers because the state level Republicans did the same thing to our property taxes. Heck we almost had entire schools closed down to close the holes. We had classrooms of up to 40 people. These were a direct result of the same type of caps that are literally taking away the day to day operations budgets of Michigan City, and placing them into "projects". Are you willing to not have your street plowed after a winter storm in exchange for a scholarship program, or a new north end? This is what Bob McKee's council votes, and mayoral platform will give us. If you don't believe me, look at the numbers. Project what will happen to our budget when the caps are fully into place.

There's more, but those are the biggest things for me. I think McKee's term in the Council has set City back, both politically, socially, and ethically.

[RedDevilMC]

All I can say is WOW and I totally disagree with you about a majority of what you are saying but everyone has their opinion. Opinions are a good thing. People have different interactions with folks in many different venues which can lead to conflict. I can probably bring up a personal issue/problem I've had with each of the candidates excluding Larocco. Not gonna harp on those right now. My concern is the future of Michigan City. Mike, you know I got nothing but luv for you (and will continue to support you in anything that you do)but I am supporting Bob McKee in the Mayor's race.

Angie Nelson

[Southsider2k12]

None of that is personal. There are other ethical things that bother me in this race, along with the council races. A lot of the Jones election law violations haven't been touched, along with some other things. The article was centered around McKee, so that is why that was brought up.

[lovethiscity]

None of that is personal. There are other ethical things that bother me in this race, along with the council races. A lot of the Jones election law violations haven't been touched, along with some other things. The article was centered around McKee, so that is why that was brought up.

I agree with you Mchael on the spending caps and the belief that this town has gone backwards in the last four years. The caps axed a the small youth job program for kids. I would have like to have seen it get bigger, not cut. The investment we do not make in the children really shows up in the summer where they become very good at hanging on corners.

[RedDevilMC]

I agree with you Mchael on the spending caps and the belief that this town has gone backwards in the last four years. The caps axed a the small youth job program for kids. I would have like to have seen it get bigger, not cut. The investment we do not make in the children really shows up in the summer where they become very good at hanging on corners.

First and foremost, the MAYOR makes the decision on how he manages his budget. He decided on what he was going to cut to balance the budget, not the council. What everyone seems to be missing is that we have some inefficiencies that the Mayor has not addressed and pushed off on the Council as a Riverboat Cap issue. NOT TRUE! Take a look at some of our departments and their outputs. Look at the issues with the Sanitary District. Also, the Mayor never came to us requesting additional funding for the Summer Program.

I'm sure the Summer Youth Program could and can be funded but the Mayor has to step up and make hard decisions in which he has been unwilling to do. The Efficiency Task force identified several areas that should have been addressed. The Council would have been more open to lifting the cap if a few things were moving to more efficent ways of handling business. We have FAT in the City Government whether anyone wants to address it or not.

I'm sure the insurance situation could have been handled better but again, the COUNCIL did not make the decision on who, what, when and how. The mayor did. We just took the fall for it. But, I will tell you that most of the citizens that I spoke to could not believe the City Employees were only paying $1 for insurance. How do you explain that to taxpayers who are paying twice as much as what the mayor offered for insurance or to people who have been uninsured like myself.

So if you want to place blame on the Council do so. We have done our jobs as the legislative branch of government. I represent the taxpayers. I don't mind getting beat up for what I believe is the right thing to do.

Okay I'm done. I have a brief to complete.
Angie Nelson

[Southsider2k12]

So here is my question Angie. If they felt any of these things were bad, why didn't the Council vote against them and force the Mayor to come up with a "better" plan. The Mayor can't force the council to do anything. He can push something, but if you all vote it down, it is dead. End of story.

I agree that there is plenty of other fat to be cut. But that doesn't excuse the Councils role in this.

The Sanitary District is a whole other ball of disaster. The Mayors lack of leadership there was astonishing and embarrassing. It blows my mind to this day that not a single employee or board member has ever been held responsible for what happened down there. And don't forget we still have the federal aspect of this left to settle out. We haven't heard from the District Attorney after the raid.

And I still love you too Angie! I think you have done a wonderful job, even when I haven't agreed with you. I love the work that you did in the community above and beyond your council role.

[RedDevilMC]

That's what you guys are missing in the process: There was no vote on those things. It is up to the Mayor to balance his budget. We vote on capital expenditures and things brought forth to us by request from the Mayor. As far as the operating budget, the Mayor has to balance it as he sees fit (that includes health insurance, employment, etc). Unless he comes to the Council with a request, he has to make a decision on what, where and how he manages his operating budget.

Not sure if that helps or not.

Angie

[lovethiscity]

That's what you guys are missing in the process: There was no vote on those things. It is up to the Mayor to balance his budget. We vote on capital expenditures and things brought forth to us by request from the Mayor. As far as the operating budget, the Mayor has to balance it as he sees fit (that includes health insurance, employment, etc). Unless he comes to the Council with a request, he has to make a decision on what, where and how he manages his operating budget.

Not sure if that helps or not.

Angie

I can't be believe I am defending Oberlie but here goes.
Back on August 4, 2009 the mayor explained in detail what the effects of the "CAPS" would have on the budget. The City Council could not see past the end of the meeting, could not live in the reality of the tax mess or the floundering economy. The result is almost exactly what he said would happen. Meer and McKee acted suprised when city workers started showing up at council meeting about their insurance. Meer claims the mayor only had to ask to have the "CAPS" raised. Well he did ask and was told NO! with a 9-0 vote.


The Clerk read the following letter received in the Clerk’s Office on July 28, 2009,
July 28, 2009
Mr. Thomas Fedder
City Clerk
100 East Michigan Blvd.
Michigan City, IN 46360
Dear Mr. Fedder:
Please find attached ordinance #4066 adopted by the Common Council on the 21st day of July, 2009.
While I agree with the concept of the ordinance to reduce the amount of Riverboat funds utilized for operating
expenses, I do not believe this is the time to reduce the restrictions presently in place. As you know, to comply with
the recent state laws establishing property tax caps, the City of Michigan City must already reduce our 2010 budget
by two million dollars. This requirement alone is a formidable task.
The Common Council has previously, at my request and consent, authorized a 45% cap. By reducing the cap at this
time through this ordinance to 35%, one million dollars of additional appropriations will need to be removed from
the 2009 budget for the year 2010. Thus, if this ordinance is enacted, a combined total of three million dollars will
need to be removed from the 2010 budget.
In an attempt to reduce reliance on riverboat money for operating expenses, numerous initiatives are already in
place. This includes reduction of four police officers, four firefighters, nine dispatchers, and three mechanics in the
Central Maintenance department. In addition, upper ranks in the Fire Department have been frozen until, by
attrition, the number of Asst. Chiefs and Captains is in line with the current station alignment. We have
implemented energy saving measures in all departments, converted to a self insured worker’s compensation program
and brought our IT support back in house as the cost of private support escalated.
As I look ahead to the 2010 budget, I anticipate significant changes in the health insurance program for the
employees. I have anticipated a phase in over two years but, under the consequence of ordinance #4066, we will be
required to institute significant changes in a single year. I also anticipate additional staff reductions and replacing
our T-1 lines with a connection to the Michigan City Area Schools fiber optic.
Furthermore, property tax assessments have not been established for the years 2007 through the current year and the
2008 and 2009 municipal budgets have not yet been approved by the Department of Local Government Finance
(DLGF) leading to uncertainty and some financial risk as we proceed forward. Actual revenue and expenditure
lines are not known in spite of the fact that the 2008 budget has been closed and we are more than one-half way
through 2009.
Based on the uncertainties created by the state property tax loss (both tax caps and assessment process) and the cost
reduction programs already imposed, I am vetoing ordinance #4066 pursuant to IC-36-4-6-16.
Page 3 August 4, 2009
Should you support my veto of the ordinance, I can assure you that the administration has no intention of submitting
a budget that would exceed the existing 45% cap, but, will strive to reduce those obligations.
Sincerely,
Chuck Oberlie, Mayor
City of

[RedDevilMC]

And what.....I will not vote on a blank check for the Mayor on the operating budget when he has areas within the budget that he can make cuts. Now, I will vote on items brought on their individual merits that are brought forth. That hasn't happened and if it does, I will vote on these items as necessary. I am in total agreement with all of the Council members that the Riverboat Cap is the right thing. Also, the general public thought it was a great idea. Everyone acts like the caps are written in stone. They are not but it takes 5 votes to amend it. But I prefer allocating funding on a case by case basis. Just my own opinion.

Angie

[lovethiscity]

And what.....I will not vote on a blank check for the Mayor on the operating budget when he has areas within the budget that he can make cuts. Now, I will vote on items brought on their individual merits that are brought forth. That hasn't happened and if it does, I will vote on these items as necessary. I am in total agreement with all of the Council members that the Riverboat Cap is the right thing. Also, the general public thought it was a great idea. Everyone acts like the caps are written in stone. They are not but it takes 5 votes to amend it. But I prefer allocating funding on a case by case basis. Just my own opinion.

Angie

This is where I am just going to agree to disagree. The mayor never asked for or even implied he wanted a blank check. In fact he included pretty concrete numbers as well as the explanation of what the result would be. Spin it with the blank check statement if you must, there is just no substance behind it. In fact he agrees to the removal of the riverboat funding from the operating budget. This was just not the time to cut so fast. I agree with him and I am pretty sure most city workers do as well. We will also have more kids with nothing to do but hang on the revamped Blvd. He asked to raise the "CAP" he did it politely and specified why. What he did not do was grovel and beg and he should not have to.

"By reducing the cap at this time through this ordinance to 35%, one million dollars of additional appropriations will need to be removed from the 2009 budget for the year 2010. Thus, if this ordinance is enacted, a combined total of three million dollars will need to be removed from the 2010 budget."

[UTBMC]

Kudos to Red Devil for factually addressing the McKee Hater ranting and misinformation. But of course, you both chose to ignore most of her facts to further your agendas and candidates. Here are more facts in regard to your McKee Hater ramblings.

The “warning” letter from the Mayor clearly demonstrates his decisions - not the councils. Modifications and changes for city employee insurance had been discussed for at least the past six years and well before his letter. In fact, the Mayor, City Controller and Human Resource Director have all advised city department heads multiple times over that time period that changes were necessary and forthcoming, and to prepare City employees for it. Insurance remains an issue across America for millions of employers and employees. M.C. employees still have much better insurance than many others.

McKee addressed all your questions and criticisms (and more) about the academic initiative during the candidate forums (both live and taped) and on his web site. Similar programs have merit and success in other areas. Bob’s expertise is in finance and he has his own successful business managing finances. I speculate that neither of you can list such qualifications. Suggesting McKee can’t substantiate his initiative funding and that he proposed anything fiscally dangerous is absurd. (I am not a big fan of gambling, but it is a most stable source of revenue, albeit the millions may fluctuate as in any industry. Either fortunately for city revenue or unfortunately for society just look at Blue Chip’s and Four Wind’s parking lots absolutely anytime.)

You both constantly criticize city spending when it does not line to your preferences, but now at election time spending caps are terrible and evil. Spending caps are heavily instituted across the country in both the public and private sector-they are necessary and nothing new or unusual. Effective leadership is needed to mange this reality at any level. RD addressed the process and council responsibility very well in my opinion.
For SS’r to state none of it was personal is ridiculous, as it is blatantly obvious that it is grossly personal. You hold Bob McKee accountable for your school board election loss, and I can understand that as an effective campaign earns more votes. Bob ran a campaign to be elected to the council well before you or his sister ran for School Board, so your “practice run for Mayor theory” is quite a stretch. At the same time, I realize you are not in the same league as a Bob McKee, and you are proud of that.

You center your activities and attention to your blogs, FB, Anvil Chorus, etc. both on personal and campaign levels, which is YOUR CHOICE. Others don’t agree those are the most effective channels to get elected. So you criticize McKee for his ideas, advertising and focus in other mediums instead of your blogging ways and means. Then as you rip him and others constantly, you arrogantly conclude they are afraid to participate in your mediums or with those that don’t agree, which is also ridiculous and bogus. This forum is not a priority for others as it is to you. In fact, many elected officials and voters choose not to participate here, or on Talk of the Town, News & Views, etc., and that is THEIR CHOICE. What I find interesting (as you like to blog SS’r) is that McKee and others that do not participate in those forums or here win elections frequently. The candidates supported by most of the hard core regular bloggers here overwhelmingly do not win. We shall soon see if this holds true with this election.

Bob is as ethical a person and leader as you can find. Your accusations of conflict of interest, and self- perceived opinions that suit you as to why such exist, are nonsense. Further, and by definition, there are “conflicts of interest” that are not avoidable, and many times a conflict of interest is neither unethical nor illegal. There are many MCAS board members (past and present) with direct and indirect ties and relationship to the city or county, and there is nothing wrong or illegal with that. It’s part of what comprises a community. A separation of city and schools is counter-productive, as Mr. Harding proved. The City and MCAS have teamed and partnered for the good of Michigan City in numerous ways for years and years. Who a MCAS board member chooses to support for any elected office is their choice, but that is not an unethical or illegal conflict of interest.

As demonstrated through the candidate forums, media interviews, position papers, etc., there is no question McKee is the most qualified professional candidate for mayor to effectively lead Michigan City forward. The quality of the City Council from a professional ism, leadership and decision making standpoint improved tremendously since McKee was voted in. Now more than ever, the Mayor’s office needs this proven and effective leadership, vision, and fiscal expertise!

[Southsider2k12]

Bob, a few things here.

First off, if the Casino funding is really stable, how could it drop 25-30% when the Four Winds Casino opened? The only safe funding formula for education involves endowment funds. Funding through means that has seen a third of it disappear in literally a months time and in this case it would leave either taxpayers holding the bill, or students without scholarships I believe is the very definition of irresponsible. I don't see how you could conclude otherwise.

Second, when who wins an election has a direct personal gain, that is the very definition of conflict of interest. That can't be clearer than it is. When candidates are cross-promoting agendas in areas that are supposed to be separated, to the point where it even states it on the wall? Well if you can't see the ethical shortfalls there, you are pretty well proving my point about a lack of ethics in your campaign. And to be clear here, there is a massive gulf between working together for professional reasons, and personal reasons. I have yet to see a single sitting school board member chair a partisan campaign, or see a sitting politician chair a school board campaign in Michigan City. I know the key is to blur the the lines between professional and personal to make it seem beneficial, but if the intent was to mix politicians and school board members, school board nominations would be done by the Mayor, like they are in many communities. Ours are separate for a reason.

Third you are making a leap of faith when it comes to spending and spending caps being mutually exclusive. You don't have to have spending cuts to have spending at under control levels. All spending caps do is to put a noose around a budgets neck economically. The Republicans were wrong to do it at the state level as well. In this case as caps kick in, we will lose City services. There is no doubt about it. There is no way to enforce those without cutting costs somewhere, and what is left at this point. The idea behind that is why the cuts were phased in, and not just enforced in practicality. Now this is the best of both worlds. Handcuffs are put on the Mayor, and then when the Mayor reacts to what he has to do, you get to point the finger at him. The worst of the cuts is going to come in the coming years, which of course conveniently is after the election.

[Southsider2k12]

And by the way, there really isn't a need to re-register and use a new name Informed. The IP records give that away.

[UTBMC]

And by the way, there really isn't a need to re-register and use a new name Informed. The IP records give that away.

I can assure you that Bob McKee did not make the post and that you incorrectly addressed your response to him. As I stated, he and many others don’t pay any attention here…

[lovethiscity]

I can assure you that Bob McKee did not make the post and that you incorrectly addressed your response to him. As I stated, he and many others don’t pay any attention here…

Okay bob, your story stick to it.

[RedDevilMC]

Now people are really tripping. I guess I'm done with this. Now that I know big brother is watching. Can't wait til the elections are over.

Angie

[Southsider2k12]

The site has always been monitored for people registering multiple accounts in order to manipulate arguments. It doesn't happen very often here, but it does happen.