Brown County Regional Sewer District (BCRSD) Meeting Notes, Jan 11, 2024.

Audio of the Meeting.   Total length – 55:51

• • 12:09 mark.  Kevin Allen from BLN provides a technical update on the project.
  • 47:15 – My questions to confirm the key points. Pushback from Studabaker on providing me a copy of the information packet being sent to customers.

Transparency. The neglected aspect of the project is communication with customers and other citizens as to the status and project timelines that could be shared via their website, Facebook site, or articles in the Democrat.  A lack of transparency can be a deliberate strategy.

Officers.  Officers remain the same except the treasurer:  President – Mike Leggins, Vice President – Clint Studabaker, Secretary – Richard Hall, Treasurer – Matt Hanlon, and At-Large Phil LeBlanc (previous treasurer).

Premilinary Engineer Report (PER). Another PER that provides the details for the projects has been completed. The PER has not yet been posted to the BCRSD website.

Funding. The BCRSD has received a Bond Anticipation Note (BAN) of $2.1 million minus legal fees of 36K. The BAN does not have to be paid back. The BCRSD has two years (starting this January) to execute the plan that is being funded. They hope to meet the requirements within one year.

Phase 1/ Division 1.  The money from the BAN will be used to fund all the work required to solicit bids for construction (April 2025).  This would include surveys, engineering reports, and easements.

The Phase 1 project and Sub-phases. The Phase 1 project is broken up into 7 segments or divisions.   Division One will include a line from Helmsburg to the Bean Blossom and extend north to provide service to the Bean Blossom Village. The village includes commercial properties, churches, Bill Monroe Campground, Trailer Park, etc.  Customers in this area (around 180) will be receiving an information packet within the next few days and are being asked to provide information that will include the location of their septic system.

The BCRSD website does not have a current map that identifies the phases and divisions/segments nor is there information on projected timelines for when customers who live in areas that range from Lake Lemon to Woodland Lake can expect service.

Customer Information Packet. Although they had a copy of the packet that was being mailed, Clint Studabaer did not want to provide me with a copy before the customers received it. I will post the packet (public information) on Matters once I receive a copy – probably within the next week.

Meeting Dates: In 2024, All their meetings will be held on the 2^nd Thursday of the month, 6:00 at the 4H community room.  The Joint meeting with Helmsburg RSD will be on the 4^th Thursday.

Audio of the Meeting

Board and Commission Vacancies

Agenda Commissioner Meeting Jan 3 2023

The highlight:

Total Solar Eclipse. 10:50 mark – Excellent briefing by the EMA Director – Chad Jenkins, on the planning for the Total Eclipse on April 8, 2023.  Guidance from the state on estimates of additional visitors is to plan for 4-5 times the peak volume of visitors that we get in the county. County offices and the Schools will be closed.

Commentary – 2024 Primaries – 2 commissioner vacancies – Pittman (District 3) and Wolpert (District 1).  Sanders was elected in 2022 and started serving his 4-year term this January.

2024 Primary – Commissioner Term Limits. County voters have voluntarily embraced term limits for commissioners consisting of two 4 year terms. Jerry Pitmman is finishing his second term. Wolpert has previously served one term and was not re-elected and was not a successful candidate for commissioner in 2020.  He was elected by 7 of 11 Republican precinct chairs to complete the term of office of Chuck Braden who resigned the position due to work conflicts.  Wolpert was also elected previously by precinct chairs to fill a commissioner vacancy.

Commissioner Sanders defeated an incumbent attempting to be elected to a third term. He has made positive and significant impacts, researches the issues before blindly casting a vote, and represents the interests of all citizens and not just the special interests.  He is too often the only “No” vote on unnecessary spending and ill-conceived changes.

Other

o. Election of Officers. Jerry Pittman and Blake Wolpert nominated and voted for each other as  President (Pittman) and Vice President (Wolpert) respectively. Ron Sanders voted No to each.

o. Jerry Pittman and Blake Wolpert nominated and voted for each other as  President (Pittman) and Vice President (Wolpert) respectively. The same thing happened last year. Both of their terms of office end this year. Ron Sanders voted No to each.

o. 2024 Primaries. In addition to the two commissioners, there will be three council seats and 11 Republican precinct chairs on the May ballot.

o. Prosecutors Office – Land Acquisition. As covered previously on Matters, the decision by Pittman and Wolpert to pay $300K for a 1/2 acre is void. The property has been pulled from the market by the seller.  Sanders identified an additional option which would be the space adjacent to the north side of the courthouse.  He will be discussing this option with the Judge, Prosecutor, and Sheriff.  Building at the current location is another option.

• • I am not aware of any documentation that supports the need to demolish the existing building and replace it with a new structure.

o. Capital Improvement Plan.  For the first time in county history, new commissioner Ron Sanders took the initiative to coordinate the development of a plan that is expected to be nearly completed by the end of January. The lack of a plan has been a repeat finding by the state board of accounts.

o. Board and Commission Vacancies.  I “assume” these will be advertised in the Brown County Democrat which I did not see in this week’s paper.  Notification on the Democrat has been the past practice.  Commissioners Pittman and Wolpert stated they wanted to start making selections at their next meeting.

o. Gnaw Bone RSD. No change from last meeting.  They need three new board members and need to contract for maintenance.  The expectation for the previous board members was to also perform maintenance. They need an estimated 500K for repairs and a new plan to support the possible need for expansion.  The big question is whether the RSD will be absorbed by the Brown County RSD or remain an independent RSD that would likely be more receptive to the interests of the area.  The Brown Country RSD has never had any paying customers or experience in managing a functional RSD.  They have been “silent” on the Gnaw Bone RSD issues and challenges.

• • Notes on the topic – Dec 27, 2023 Commissioner Meeting

Agenda County Council Meeting Dec 28, 2023   

Audio of the Meeting https://independentvotersofbrowncountyin.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/audio-council-meeting-dec-28-2023-.mp3

This post at Brown County Matters

On the land acquisition for a new prosecutor’s office, the listing has been pulled from the market. Letter from the seller – Encounter Life Ministries (ELM)

To VOTERS:  In considering your votes for the May 2024 primaries, you might consider listening to the audio on the discussion on buying property for a new prosecutor’s office (41.15 on audio).  Funding for the project has not been identified in the 2024 budget nor is there a plan for the size of the building needed.

This is probably one of the more insightful meetings that provide citizens with an opportunity to assess the performance of elected council members and commissioners. Key points from the meeting are summarized below:

Outline of the Meeting / Audio

• • 1:00 – 8:30. Opening/Citizen Questions. Note that not much time is taken up with answering questions.
    • I pointed out that only “Allowing” questions at the beginning of a meeting should be “re-considered.” Questions arise as a result of the discussion on the various topics. Gary Huett, the President of the Council stated that are re-considering the policy and in fact, it was ignored in the meeting. Citizens asked questions as the meeting progressed.
    • The local GoP initiated the “no question” policy last fall. It was ignored. This year, both Commiussiponer Pittman and Councilman Huett reminded citizens that they do not have to allow for any questions. Why the threat?
  • 8:40 – 16:30.  Highway Department – Roads. Of interest: For the first time in 5 years, the county did not get the 1 million community crossing grant that funds road maintenance. The state limited the money going to counties. However, in 2024, the amount available increases to 1.5 million and we may have a good chance of receiving this money.
  • 16:30 to 19:20. A little more detail on the health insurance fund. Note that as Jim Kemp points out, health insurance costs are our highest financial risk. It is less expensive to be self-insured BUT it comes with risk and until recently, the council has not prioritized (or even considered) the need to have an additional fund to save money for a very bad year.
  • 31:05. 2023 Salary Ordinance – Close-out.  Nothing significant.
  • 40.25 – Council Contract with a New Attorney. Minor issue, easily resolved. If you listen to the discussion on property acquisition, you can better understand why the council desperately needs its own attorney who is experienced in county government. 
  • 41:15. PROPERTY ACQUISITION – The HEADLINER ISSUE – STAR OF THE SHOW.

This discussion starts at the 41:15 mark on the audio. Very insightful discussion. Arguments could be made as to why  those councilmen voting Yes should  receive feedback that they should be “FIRED” or given an “ATTA BOY.”

Additional coverage of this meeting is discussed at Brown County Refreshed – a private Facebook group – the admin is Sherrie Mitchell who also attended the meeting.

• • Sales Listing: 153 & 161 Gould St. 
  • Property Description and Assessed Values – Brown County GIS: Property and Lot – Gould Street
    • 153 E. Gould Street — 174, 700; 161 E. Gould – 135,900; Total: $310,600

Background. Commissioner Pittman and Wolpert voted to purchase property for a new prosecutor’s office at their Dec 27, 2023 meeting. They need the support of the council via a resolution and ordinance supporting the acquisition. Commissioner Wolpert- voted in by 7 of 11 republican precinct chairs to fill the position vacated by Chuck Braden, is the lead spokesman for the local GoP and Commissioner Pittman.   Commissioner Sanders voted No on the acquisition and identified additional and likely more cost-effective options.

The (300K) Land Acquisition is the last topic on the agenda. The need for due diligence is represented by council members Kemp and Swift-Powdrill. Councilman Redding was absent but can also be a  voice of reason.   Challenging the dictates from the local GoP leadership can have its downsides.

Fast-Track. The local GoP is “HOT” for this property purchase. When these kinds of decisions come up, they put together their talking points that parallel  “The Sky is Falling Unless We Do Something  NOW!” narrative. They appoint spokesmen (s), reinforce the expectation among their faithful for Yes votes, and push/force things through as fast as possible (fast-tracking). The belief is that this  can prevent opposition that can form to slow things down and allow time to perform some semblance of “due diligence.”    This prevents the obvious questions such as: “What the hell are you thinking?”

(This fast-track strategy was used to close the railroad crossing at Indiana Hill Rd. A decision where those opposing the closing spent three years reversing with more left to do.)

In this case, the council voted 4 Yes to 2 Nos to support a property acquisition for a new prosecutor’s office “before” they have ANY idea as to what is exactly needed, i.e., a requirement such as size/square footage, etc. “Due Diligence” requires working through the TOTAL COST ($1.5 – 2 million?) of the project – NOT just land (300k) “and” site prep at $50-100K?

Drafting a Resolution during the meeting. The discussion on Resolution vs Ordinance was “confusing.” To get a vote, Councilman Byrd drafted a Resolution followed by the vote. This was an unprecedented act – never seen it done before. I did witness the commissioners vote on the Resolution that did not exist to close the Indian Hill RR crossing.

Property Acquisition Votes: YES Votes: Huett, Rudd, Kirby, Byrd. NO votes: Kemp, Swift-Powdrill. Redding absent.

Capital Improvement Planning. A need for a new prosecutor’s office was been recognized for over 10 years. Until this year, the commissioners refused to develop any capital improvement plan or budget to identify infrastructure needs to include repairs, replacements/new buildings, and funding.  The lack of a plan has been a repeat finding from the State Board of Accounts(SBOA) that can be and was ignored by county elected officials.

Newly elected commissioner Sanders has been working on a plan and has worked to identify options. However, since he was not the preferred candidate for the Local GoP and their agendas, he is marginalized. Voters can get him some help starting with the 2024 primaries.

Last fall, the commissioners approved funding an addition (around a million dollars) for the courthouse. BUT, all the money for the project was not identified. In the “Search for Money” –  soon to be a major motion picture starring Indiana Jones, money was found for the courthouse project along with an additional $1.4~ million of funds we did not know was available. These funds were applied to health insurance costs that allowed the county to eliminate the deficit. This is the first time in over 4 years we did not start the year in the red.

The more good news is that a systemic problem with budgeting has been identified and corrected, which will hopefully, prevent a re-occurrence. Note that a former auditor uncovered the same issue – money available but not accurately recorded.

Other positive improvements this year have been hiring a new county financial/budget consultant and a new attorney for the council.  Ron Sanders also has been instrumental in representing the interests of all county citizens and not just the special interests. Jim Kemp identified the costs and risks related to health insurance.

History –  Prosecutor Space Requirements:  The county spent 16K (2018) on a study/plan developed by DLZ to build a New Justice Center that included the space requirements for the prosecutor’s office. The total cost of the project would have maxed out on what we would be allowed to borrow. The plan did not identify a compelling need to justify the scope and cost. Changes have since been made to the existing courthouse at a cost of under 2 million dollars and a new prosecutor’s office would likely cost under 2 million. Of interest?  The top floor of the old (abandoned) courthouse would have been used for commissioner’s offices.   Their offices have since been expanded in the space vacated by the Health Department. A new building (the old Nashville PD) was purchased that now houses the Health Department. The initial justification for this acquisition was to provide space for community corrections. The same rationale was used to procure the building ” a once in a lifetime opportunity  …. blah, blah, blah.

This post at Brown County Matters

Agenda Commissioner Meeting Dec 27, 2023

Audio of the meeting – Outline https://independentvotersofbrowncountyin.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/audio-commissioner-meeting-dec-27-2023.mp3

• • 3:36 – 35:30.  Courthouse – Change Order of $24, 575.
  • 36:00 – 56:11 – Gnaw Bone Sewer – Management, cost increases, option
  •  56:20 -1:12 – Proposed Property Purchase
  • 1:12 – 1:26 Music Center – Profit Distribution
  • 1:26 – 1:34 – Cottonwood Rd – Follow-Up

NOTES

Gnaw Bone Regional Sewer District. Board members are retiring and there have been no volunteers to fill the positions. Customers are paying around $65 a month which will likely be increasing. (Helmsburg customers are paying $92.50 a month.). An increase would require a rate study. There are maintenance issues that may require around 500K to address. More importantly, there are management issues – IDEM oversees RSDs. The Gnaw Bone RSD has asked for support from Brown County RSD (BCRSD) who can take over the district with IDEMs approval. This would give the BCRSD actual “paying customers” and the opportunity to demonstrate their capability to provide outstanding customer service.

Options of selling and having an outside group manage the RSD were also mentioned.  In addition to maintenance, additional capacity may be needed to support future customers.

A “contractor” to the BCRSD – Kevin Allen from BLN, was asked to provide an update on the status and the options to the commissioners. The VP of the “Brown County” RSD – Clint Studabaker was in attendance and was silent during the discussions. This was curious in that Studabaker led the development of a “County-wide” wastewater strategic plan at a cost of over $100K. Note also that IDEM approved the Gnaw Bone RSDs request for board members to be elected by customers as opposed to commissioners and council. So why isn’t Studebaker/BCRSD taking the management lead on behalf of the county?

The overall discussion reminded me of an Abbott and Costello comedy routine – “Who is on first?”

Land Acquisition. Commissioner Pittman and Wolpert proposed buying a $300,000 property near the county building to build a new prosecutor’s office. Another option is to build it at the location of the existing prosecutor’s office – an option proposed by Commissioner Sanders.  The existing buildings at both locations will have to be removed. Commissioner  Sanders also identified another possible option of a building acquisition. Stay tuned.  For some reason, the local GoP is hot for the acquisition.

Rent to Own?  No discussion on the source of the funding for a county that reportedly is operating at a deficit and drawing down reserves.  Discussions for funding the new building have included borrowing the money or having a company build it and lease it back to us where we would own it at the end of the lease.

Music Center – Profits. Commissioner Sanders made a motion that 100% of the excess profits from the Music Center be returned to the county. His motion was NOT supported by Commissioner Pittman or Wolpert.  Wolpert equated the idea as “looting them.”

Councilman Kemp pointed out that tourism generates additional expenses on the county that we are not reimbursed for and that a separate fund can be established to cover these expenses with the profits from the Music Center.  One of the justifications for funneling the money to the Foundation was to prevent the county from frivolous spending.

The Community Foundation believes they are “entitled” to receiving the funds. Their webpage identifies that they did donate “some” money but does not specify the amount. However, federal taxpayers contributed $2.7 million in grants and county taxpayers another $239K. The foundation has NEVER had any risk nor have their board members explained to county citizens why we should be subsidizing their organization.

The current admin agreement identifies that 70%of any exec profits (“if legal”) are to go to the Community Foundation and 25% to the county. This admin agreement was developed by the Music Center (Maple Leaf) management group and NOT approved via a vote at a commissioner or council meeting. The management group consists of 5 self-appointed and non-elected officials (Barry Herring, Kevin Ault, Jim Schultz, Diana Biddle, Bruce Gould) and two elected officials – Darenn Bryd of the Council and Jerry Pittman from the Board of Commissioners.

Councilman Jim Kemp sharing his perspective as a taxpayer, reinforced that costs of tourism are subsidized by county taxpayers and suggested that a new fund be established and profits from the Music Center applied to cover these expenses.

Commissioner Wolpert proposed that they meet with the Music Center management group and discuss changes. I suggested the Commissioners hold a public meeting to get citizen input on this arrangement.  I will be surprised if this happens.

Courthouse Addition – 25K Change Order  – “Last Summer”, a change order was needed and approved to correct a mistake in the specifications. Typically, the additional cost is at the expense of the architect – DLZ. However, DLZ wanted the county to pay for it. Commissioners are proposing that the county pay half and DLZ pay half.   This agreement is contingent on DLZ accepting the proposal.

Gifts and Gratuities.  DLZ also proposed that the county pay 100% and they would provide future services at a cost equivalent to the change order.   Note that DLZ (and other contractors to county governments) offer gifts/gratuities at commissioner and other county government-related conferences.  To prevent the appearance of a conflict, should the county develop the “first ever” policy on accepting gifts and gratuities. Background information: Personnel Policy – Gifts and Gratuities

Kevin Allen of BLN questioned the practice of a company offering free services for future projects.  BLN is a competitor of DLZ and is emerging as the local GoP’s favorite go-to contractor.

Cottonwood Road – Condition. The condition of the road and request for help was discussed at the Derc 6 meeting. Commissioner Sanders committed to following up with the request for more gravel on the road. Background info: “Gravel Road Policy – Safety, Maintenance, Costs https://independentvotersofbrowncountyin.com/2023/12/07/gravel-road-policy-safety-maintenance-costs/

In Brown County, the Republicans have a monopoly on political power. The winners in the  Republican May primary have a very high probability of winning in the Nov General Election.

Primary deadlines and position for 2024 (courtesy of Sherrie Mitchell).

This monopoly on power leads to a situation where if any county citizen wants a voice in their county government, they need to vote in the Republican Primary. They can then vote for either the Republican or Democrat candidate in the Nov elections.

• • If any citizen wants to run for office in the Republican primary, they need to be considered a “Republican in Good Standing” per Rule 1-24 or 1-25 (see below – Indiana GOP Rules).  This rule is currently being challenged – The Indiana Supreme Court will be hearing arguments on February 12, three days after the filing deadline. (see below).
    •  Feb 12, 2023, Audio – IN Supreme Court – Oral Arguments https://independentvotersofbrowncountyin.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/in-supreme-court-party-rules-240212.mp3
    • Brown County Matters

“If” the Supreme Court determines the rules are unconstitutional, should any candidate that may not meet the current rules submit their nomination as a candidate?

Candidates. All Republican precinct chairs will be on the May primary ballot. In addition, 2 commissioners (District 1 and 3) and three at-large council seats.  The precinct chairs elect the county chair in March following the Nov election.

Indiana Precinct (PC) Project — “Learn how to protect the Foundation of the Republican Party. Learn about the MOST POWERFUL role in politics!”

2024 Elections Candidate Information – Secretary of State

• • 46439 fill-in CAN-2: Declaration of Candidacy for Primary Election in 2024

Oct 2023. Indiana GOP Rules of the Indiana Republican State Committee

• • “Rule 1-24. A “Qualified Primary Republican” is a voter who cast Republican Party ballot at the two (2) most recent primary elections in Indiana which the voter voted, and who is a Republican in Good-Standing.”  (1)

• • “Rule 1-25. The term “Republican in Good-Standing” shall be defined as a Republican who supports Republican nominees and who does not actively or openly support another candidate against a Republican nominee.”
  • (1) Note: This law does not mean the candidate must have voted in the two (2) most chronologically recent primary elections and requested a Democratic or Republican ballot; instead, the person’s vote history must demonstrate that the last two (2) primary elections in which the person voted must align with the party the candidate seeks to affiliate in the primary election. For example, if a candidate pulled a Republican Party primary ballot in 2019, did not vote in the 2020 and 2022 primary elections, and requested a Republican Party primary ballot in 2023, then this candidate meets the requirements set forth in state law to file a declaration of candidacy (CAN-2) for the Republican Party primary without attaching the chair’s certification.  Ref: Indiana SOS, 2024 Indiana Candidate Guide.
• Indiana Statute: IC 3-8-2-7 Declaration of candidacy; contents

Challenges to Rule 1-24 and 1-25

Dec 18, 2023. Rust challenge set for argument in February By NIKI KELLY, INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE Posted December 18, 2023

• • The Indiana Supreme Court has set oral arguments for Feb. 12 in John Rust’s legal challenge. (Lauren Chapman/IPB News)
  • The Indiana Supreme Court has set arguments in John Rust’s election law challenge for February 12, three days after the filing deadline to run for U.S. Senate.

Dec 15, 2023. Indiana Supreme Court – Order – Expedite, briefing scheduled

• • Additional Info: MyCase.In.Gov  Diego Morales, et al. v. John Rust,
    Case Number  23S-PL-00371 
  • Amended Opposition to Motion to expedite … 

Dec 11, 2023. Indiana AG appeals ruling favoring Rust’s ballot access
By Indiana Capital Chronicle

• • Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita on Friday filed a notice of appeal, requesting the Indiana Supreme Court step in after a trial court judge last week found a state elections law unconstitutional.
  • Court action will likely be swifter than usual with key election deadlines coming in January and February.

Dec 8, 2023. Indiana Secretary of State Appeals Ruling for US Senate Candidate Seeking GOP Nod.   The Indiana secretary of state is appealing a ruling that a law stipulating voting requirements for a candidate’s party affiliation is unconstitutional

• • Rust voted as a Republican in the 2016 primary but as a Democrat in 2012. He did not vote in the 2020 Republican primary because of the pandemic and the lack of competitive Republican races in Jackson County, the lawsuit said. Rust said his Democratic votes were for people he personally knew.

Dec 7, 2023.  INDIANA ELECTION LAW FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL

• • “A Marion County Judge has ruled that an Indiana election law that limits candidates from appearing on the ballot in primaries is unconstitutional.
  • The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Southern Indiana egg farmer and U.S. Senate candidate John Rust. Rust had filed to get on the ballot but had not voted in the last two Republican primaries and was told by his Jackson County Chairwoman she would not sign a letter that Rust was in good standing with the party, two elements required by law.
  • Judge Partick Dietrick, a Republican, held the law violated the federal and state constitutions on several grounds. He ruled the law violated the 1st and 14th Amendments, saying the state had no compelling interest in keeping Rust off the ballot.
  • In addition to the U.S. Constitution, Dietrick ruled the law also violated the State Constitution, saying it adds extra requirements to qualify for office which are not on the ballot.”

Feb 23, 2022. Brown County Democrat. Election board reviews multiple candidate challenges, more discussion set this week, by Suzannah Couch

• • The five challenges were due to either a candidate voting only once in an Indiana primary as a Republican or voting in two primary elections, but once as a Republican and the other as a Democrat.

• • 2021 $1,221,412.15
  • 2022 $1,161858.25
  • 2023 $1,327512.15

• Revenue from the innkeeper’s tax generated over 2 million dollars in 2023.   (Source: Brown County Treasurer)

o.  More money for the county? If more of the revenue was used to pay the operating expenses of the Music Center, and if 100% of excess profits were returned to the county, the county would have a needed source of revenue to deal with emerging issues.   

• • o. Do any Indiana statute restrict how “profits” from “investments” (Music Center) can be spent?
  • o. The county is not reimbursed for the expenses associated with tourism which would include police and emergency services to the State Park and the costs of any prosecution of offenses from arrests through sentencing, incarceration, and probation.

Council Agenda Dec 18, 2023

Audio – Council Meeting 20231218

County Council Meeting Notes – Dec 18, 2023

This post at Brown County Matters.

Agenda Items included:  “Allowing” citizens to ask questions and make comments, approving the salary ordinance, Indian Hill RR Crossing, turnover in the sheriff’s office, and hiring a new attorney.

Citizen Comments and Questions.   Similar to comments made by the president of the commissioners (Pittman), the council president Gary Huett, reinforced that they do not have to allow ANY public comments or questions at their meetings.  Citizens can ask to be placed on the agenda and approval of this request is at the discretion of the council president.

Huett’s policy is to allow an individual “2 minutes” for questions/comments at the “start” of the meeting.  The time allowed is arbitrary. This control prevents citizens from asking questions about anything discussed by the council before they vote on a specific issue.  Last fall, the local GOP advocated for the no-question/comment policy but it was ignored at the time.

De-funding the HR Director Position. Several citizens including Commissioner Sanders opposed the decision to de-fund the HR Director position. I reinforced that the commissioners have provided no justification for the decision which increased staffing costs, nor did they vote on this decision at a public meeting. Councilman Rudd stated that the council did not need a justification for increasing the budget and adding to our deficit.

In defense of the changes, Commissioner Wolpert stated that he “feels” the changes would improve efficiency. Commissioner Sanders stated the changes were not needed and are more expensive by around 20K.

The council voted 5 to 2 to approve the salary ordinance that included de-funding the HR Director position and the commissioner’s part-time receptionist/clerical position. They approved adding a second staff position for the commissioners – an assistant to the assistant. Council members Redding and Swift-Powdrill were the No votes.

Indiana Hill RR Crossing. Randy Pflueger of the Knowbstone Hiking Trail Association who has extensively researched the issues, provided an update on the county’s options. Councilman Rudd who has the lead for the county on the re-opening, stated that they will be meeting with INDOT to discuss the way ahead.  INDOT approved the re-opening on Sept 28 given that certain conditions were met.

Sheriff Staffing and Pay.  The sheriff’s office is experiencing turnover due to uncompetitive salaries. Surrounding counties have increased their salaries which can be 10-20K more for some positions.  The county is operating at a deficit.  Options could include hiring freezes and staffing cuts to free up more money to fund higher salaries and benefits

Public Comment Policy.  Not allowing citizens to ask questions is one of those rules that although you can enforce, should you?  The intent of laws like this is to ensure that the government can take care of business during a meeting. We are a small county and addressing questions and comments before a vote on an agenda item has never been a problem. There were probably only 2-3 meetings over the 100 I’ve attended where things got a little heated and a sheriff’s deputy was able to calm things down.   Recently, commissioner Pittman directed a citizen (Sherrie Mitchel) to be removed from a meeting. She was on the agenda and was not allowed her two minutes.

New Legal Representation. The council has been using the same attorneys as the commissioners – Barnes and Thornburg and chose to make a change.

Before their meeting, the council interviewed two attorneys. At the end of their public meeting,  they voted to hire Lorenzo Bevers Braman & Connell from Seymour.  Susan Bevers will be the attorney supporting the county. She has over 15 years of experience supporting county government including representing the various county departments and boards. Should help bring some needed guidance for the council.

Audio of the Meeting

Agenda Commissioner Mtg Dec 15, 2023

This post at Brown County Matters.

Commissioner and Working  Session Meeting  Notes Dec 15, 2023.

Working Session

Working Session – Commissioners and Council. Salary Ordinance.  I attended the working session today from 9-12.  Council members approved eliminating the funding for the HR Director position and funding a second and new position for the commissioner’s office.  The funding decision by the council is not final until it is approved via a vote at a public council meeting which is scheduled for Dec 18, 2023 at 6:30.  Funding for positions  are identified in the salary ordinance and the budget.

Working Session – Other Topics.  A lot of firefighting on recurring issues without addressing the root causes of the problem. A non-systemic approach to improvement typically results in 95% of changes resulting in no improvement.

Misc. In response to an idea about contracting for a study, Commissions Pittman pushed back and stated that the county has spent “millions” ( a little hyperbolic) on studies that sit on a shelf.  He was referring to studies from over 10 years ago or longer.   Typically, contracting for studies that are determined to be of little value are the result of incomplete or vague requirements and oversight.

Transparency. It was acknowledged that a better process is needed for publicizing the schedule of these working sessions. These meeting are about the only time the public has an opportunity to listen to discussions that support the decisions made at public meetings.    At a minimum, notice of the these meetings are supposed to be posted at the location 48 hours in advance .

Common cause or special? Another insight from these “working meetings” is gaining insight on process problems. There are  generally only two categories of “problems” – is the issue recurring /common (the majority) or does it represent an outlier/special ? On eliminating recurring issues, this requires a fundamental change to the process.

Commissioner Meeting

Courthouse Project – Change Order.  DLZ made an error on the plans that resulted in additional costs of around 24K.  They offered to provide services in lieu of paying for the additional costs.  Options are being considered.

Commissioner Staffing.  Council members did not request to see any analysis that justified the commissioner staffing changes.  Note last fall the council and commissioners decided a full-time commissioner assistant position was not needed. They developed a new HR Director position and a part-time receptionist clerk position.  This year, they decided the HR Director position was not needed and approved two new positions for the commissioners.  No analysis was ever provided by the commissioners or requested by the council.

Additional Commissioner Position.  Commissioners Pittman and Wolpert approved the new position; Sanders  voted No. Commissioner Sanders also asked for a legal clarification from the county attorney regarding  the defunding of the HR Director position. No vote was taken by the commissioners on the decision to defund the position. Commissioner Pittman stated a vote was not needed.

De-Funding the HR Director Position – An unethical and immoral process.  The HR Director first learned that the commissioners wanted to defund her position at a public meeting on Nov 6. 2023. No advance warning, or discussion They claimed at the time that the council had approved their decision which was not true.  Nov 6 Commissioner meeting notes provided at the following:  https://independentvotersofbrowncountyin.com/2023/11/07/commissioner-meeting-notes-part-1-nov-6-2023/

I sent a letter to Governor  Holcomb on Dec 12, 2023, questioning Indiana’s internal control statutes and policies that were applied to approve the Brown County Regional Sewer District’s (BCRSD) application for funding ($39 million) to expand sewers throughout the county.

Indiana’s internal control statutes were derived from guidance provided by the federal government.  “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, known as the “Green Book.”   “The Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA)  requires that federal agency executives periodically review and annually report on the agency’s internal control systems.”

• • Federal Govt.  “The Green Book may also be adopted by state, local, and quasi-governmental entities, as well as not-for-profit organizations, as a framework for an internal control system.”
    • Updated Green Book Standards (Executive  Overview)
    • GAO WatchBlog
  • Indiana – Internal Control Standards, State Board of Accounts (SBOA).
    • Indiana – Office of Inspector General (OIG)
  • Counties.  “Internal controls are designed by the county offices based on the identified risks of not achieving their objectives and the available resources to address those risks.”

The purpose of internal controls is to help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of operations and to help prevent waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement of taxpayer-provided funds.

This year (2023), the State Legislature voided county septic system ordinances that included requirements that exceeded state standards.  The BCRSD in justifying the need for their project, also included conclusions that contradict state standards.

• • June  1, 2023 – IDOH – Briefing Slides on the changes
  • MAR 29, 2023. House bill would let property owners ‘supersede’ Indiana health officials over septic systems – Indianapolis Business Journal
    • Now, House Bill 1402, authored by Rep. Jim Pressel, R-Rolling Prairie, intends to transfer authority over residential onsite sewage systems from IDOH to a Technical Review Panel, or TRP, made up of various state officials, scientists, academics and industry professionals. That panel would then be “in total control of Indiana’s septic code,” Pressel said, making it responsible for amending the existing state requirements and authorizing new sewage system technology.

Correspondence – State and Federal Elected Officials

Dec 22, 2023.  Inquiry to the Indian Department of Health (IDOH)

• • New state legislation that voided county septic-related requirements that exceeded state standards also created a Technical Review Panel (TRP). The TRP is to review any new septic system standards proposed by the counties.
  • The Brown County Regional Sewer District (BCRSD) has received initial approvals for its $39 million dollar sewer expansion project from the IFA/SRF. 
  • The BCRSD Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) justified a need derived from the BCRSD Wastewater Strategic Plan and Watershed Study. This plan and study did reference novel approaches for determining the effectiveness and useful life of a septic system, the adequacy of soils, and the interpretation and relevance of water samples in projecting the extent and scope of a problem.   Their strategy is available at the following: https://browncountyregionalsewerdistrict.wordpress.com/strategic-plan/
  • If counties cannot develop septic system-related standards that exceed what the state has identified, then why should county RSDs be allowed to develop new methods and standards without first being reviewed and approved by IDEM, IDOH, Others?   

Dec 18, 2023 – Cover Letter and Transmittal – State and Federal Elected Officials:
20231218 Letter Elected Reps – State and Federal

Dec 12, 2023 – 20231212 e Governor – Suggestion  Internal Control Policy
Extracts:

• • I have concerns with Indiana’s statutes and policies regarding the management of Internal Controls. State and federal statutes provide guidance regarding the development, application, and review of controls. The purpose of internal controls is to help prevent waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement of taxpayer-provided funds.
  • It is not evident that the State’s internal control program as it applies to funding of a wastewater treatment project in Brown County Indiana, is at the level that provides citizens with assurance regarding the effective and efficient use of tax dollars.
  • Note that locally developed septic system standards included in ordinances were voided by the state in 2023 and now require an independent review and approval process. Why isn’t this process being applied to locally developed standards that are being used to justify the replacement of functional septic systems for a sewer system?[1]
    • [1] Indiana Dept of Health, 2023 Legislative Update – County Septic Ordinances Voided on July 1, 2023. https://independentvotersofbrowncountyin.com/2023/06/20/indiana-dept-of-health-2023-legislative-update-septic-ordinance/

• • In summary, I request that your office direct an independent and objective assessment of IFAs internal control program in respect to their review and approval of the BCRSD wastewater projects. I also request that this review clarify the role of the state vs the county in the clarification of state standards. This would the adequacy of soils, soil testing, septic system permitting, RSD oversight, and clarification on methodologies regarding water sampling that justifies the level of funding that is provided.

Encl 1 Indiana Office of Inspector General (OIG)

Encl 2 State Board of Accounts (SBOA)

Encl 3 Indiana Finance Authority, State Revolving Fund

Encl 4 BCRSD Response to Comments provided by Lynda Sandow and Tim Clark

 Project Context:

• • BCRSD Sewer Expansion Project on “Trial” – For The Record
  • Sewer Expansion -Phase I PERs – Initial Submission
  • Nov 14, 2023. Helmsburg RSD (HRSD) Updated Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) as of Sep 21, 2023. SRF Approved. (No updated PERs available from the Brown County RSD and posted on their website. 

Cottonwood Road. Excellent presentation and discussion regarding the conditions and policy regarding gravel roads.

Dec 6, 2023, Commissioner Meeting Notes

1:05:14 Audio