Tag Archives: politics

2026 Primary: Candidate Challenges

Uncategorized, , , ,

Last updated: March 6, 2026

Summary:

  • Both the Democratic and Republican appointees on the Election Board reinforced that their Party is a private entity (a club) that can decide who can be on its ballot. They can create “any” criteria they want and expect a “county government” election board to enforce their decision.
  • Sure, it’s “possible” an individual can run and win as an independent in the general election, which, in our current system, is equivalent to telling someone to buy a lottery ticket if they want more money.
  • When is the centralization or monopoly of political power ever a good thing? The two-party system in the county is not leading to attracting the best candidates for the available offices. In fact, the system likely deters qualified people from getting involved at all.
  • An option is to move to recruit and support Independent candidates that focus on county interests over party interests.

Mar 4, 2026.  Brown County – Follow-up articles

Brown County Democrat – Article on the meeting.

The following  post is at Brown County Matters.

Candidate Challenge: Election Board Hearing, Feb 19, 2026

The board upheld the challenge to Republican candidates Rich Stanley and Sherrie Mitchell and removed them from the primary ballot.

Rich Stanley plans to challenge the Election Board’s decision in circuit court. This legal step is necessary to build a case—if required—for a potential hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. (1)
The challenge and defense of Rich’s candidacy starts at the 44:47 mark. 

The Election Board’s position supports the fact that political parties are considered private entities or clubs and do not need to provide justification when removing a candidate from their ballot. This position has been supported by federal and state courts.

Individuals can still run as Independents if they meet requirements established by both the parties and the state. In practice, winning as an Independent is similar to trying to get rich by buying a lottery ticket.

Justification? The irony is that Rich was removed from the Republican ballot because of his wife’s donation at a fundraiser for Independent candidate Greg Taggart. But the underlying reason was most likely his criticism of Mark Bowman’s leadership as Party Chair.

Taggart’s fundraiser was supported by leaders in the Republican Party despite concerns that it violated Rule 1-25. The precedent is that county partys’ within the state have banned candidates for up to 10 years for violating this rule. At a 2024 League of Women Voters forum, Taggart publicly stated that he was not a Republican and was defeated in the general election by Tim Clark, the Republican candidate.

Rule 1-25 states: “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.”
Those in attendance at the 2024 fundraiser who are on the 2026 primary Republican ballot include:
  • Scott Rudd (Commissioner)
  • Pearletta Banks (Clerk)
  • Greg Taggart (Washington Township Trustee)
Party leaders reportedly supporting the fundraiser included: Robyn Bowman (Vice Chair) and Tanner Bowman (Secretary). Mark Bowman is the Party Chair.

Rule 1-25, in practice, can be overridden by “unwritten rules.” The written rules may be selectively applied—enforced for some and ignored for others.

The “unwritten rules” described by Republican Party leadership include the fact that Individuals may be deemed in “bad standing,” and therefore ineligible to run as Republicans, for criticizing party officials, previously supporting (no time limit) a non-Republican candidate, or for other perceived infractions.
Checks and balances on power are meant to come from Precinct and Vice Precinct Committee members—but these positions can be appointed by the Party Chair. Vacancies may also remain unfilled, potentially limiting opposition. History shows that centralized power can erode trust and accountability over time. Obtaining a list of the Precinct and Vice Precinct committee members has required signing a non-disclosure agreement.
The cost? A monopoly on political power such as exists in Brown County, reduces competition, can contribute to waste, inefficiencies, and moral corruption, and can limit the number of people that want to be involved in county government. Moral corruption refers to the decline of ethical standards and principles, leading individuals or political clubs to engage in immoral or unethical behavior.

A system perceived as corrupt risks undermining the ethics and integrity of those who operate within it—sometimes without them even realizing it.
A Way Ahead?
Organizations like Independent Indiana (IndependentIndiana.org) are working to challenge the system by supporting independent candidates. The belief is that independent candidates may be more focused on serving their communities rather than party structures or special interests. America’s Founding Fathers warned that political factions could become contrary to the intent of the Constitution.
The Brown County Leader Network (browncountyleadernetwork.com) also introduces methods and tools for improving systems and supporting structural reforms aimed at strengthening transparency, accountability and improving performance.
The challenge isn’t just about one candidate—it’s about fairness, transparency, and the future of representative government.

 

Footnotes:

  1. Rich Stanley, along with Tim Clark, is challenging a previous ruling that they are not in Good Standing with the party and cannot run as Republicans for five years.  This decision was challenged in federal court, which ruled in favor of the Party and is also being challenged.
    • Clark, Stanley lawsuit dismissed in federal court, Brown County Democrat. “Clark and Stanley have now formally appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, asking the higher court to reverse the decision and allow their case to proceed.”
Oct 29, 2024. Letter: Republican commissioner candidate claims local party …by Tim Clark
Brown County Democrat
Feb 5, 2025.  Letter: Clark responds to ruling on GOP chair complaint, Brown County Democrat

2026 Commissioner Office: Meeting notes, Ongoing challenges and Issues

Uncategorized, , , ,

Last updated: Mar 4, 2026

All Commissioner and Council Meetings are available for viewing on YouTube at: Brown County Indiana Government Meetings. 

2025 Commissioner Office Accomplishments – Year in review

2026 – Ongoing Issues and Challenges

Mar 4, 2026. Agenda Comm Mtg Mar 4, 2026 Rec 2026_03_03 1500

Feb 27, 2026.  Brown County Democrat Article – Commissioner Meeting on Pumplin Ridge Rd

Feb 19, 2026. Election Board Meeting.  The written and unwritten rules of a political party. 

Feb 18, 2026.  Commissioner Meeting. Discussion on one of the more controversial issues: Mt. Tea State Forest – Upgrade of the access road – Pumpkin Ridge Rd.

Feb 17, 2026. Council Meeting – Ongoing Budget Issues.

Feb 4, 2026 Commissioner Meeting,  Long-debated Mt. Tea road plan remains unsettled, no vote yet by Courtney Hughett, Brown County Democrat,

Feb 3, 2026. Clark, Stanley lawsuit dismissed in federal court By  Courtney Hughett

Feb 3, 2026. Brown County pummeled by foot-plus snowfall, forcing rare red travel warning

  • Emergency Declaration and Red State for three days.

Jan 21, 2026. Commissioner Meeting. “Bridges, budgets, and boards: Commissioners tackle complex issues. By Courtney Hughett, January 28, 2026.

Jan 20, 2026. Council Meeting. CVC appointments expose deeper questions about tourism and public safety By Courtney Hughett -January 27, 2026

  • Andi Rogers-Bartels, who owns multiple restaurants, rental properties and retail spaces in Nashville, said she wanted to serve on the CVC to help ensure tourism dollars are used in ways that benefit both visitors and residents. She pointed to the recent increase in the innkeeper’s tax and said, “It’s going to be an important year with the new three percent raise in the tax. We really need to figure out what we as a community want and what we can do with that extra three percent.” She cautioned against simply shifting entire budgets between departments, telling the council, “It can’t just be a whole move of the budget from one entity to another. It’s got to be dissected and looked at a little closer.”

Jan 13, 2026.  Commissioner Meeting Jan 7, 2026.  Public presses commissioners on budget changes, Mt. Tea road plans  By Courtney Hughett -January 13, 2026

Jan 13, 2026.  Joint meeting – commissioners and town council (Jan 5, 2026). County eyes police building as prosecutor’s office alternative ,  by Courtney Hughett

Accounting and Budgeting.

Jan 13, 2026. County Council Meeting (Jan 8, 2026). County Council rehashes 2026 budget after process breakdowns,  January 13, 2026 by  Courtney Hughett.

    • Jan 19, 2026.  GUEST OPINION David Bottorff: Why homeowners deserve property tax relief 
      • From 2012 to 2018, residential assessed values increased by less than 4% per year. But beginning in 2019, annual increases exceeded 8%, fueled largely by rapid growth in home market values that far outpaced other property types. As market values surged, the property tax burden shifted disproportionately onto homeowners.
      • To rebalance the system, SEA 1 phases in an increase to the homeowners’ deduction, ultimately allowing homeowners to deduct 67% of their home’s market value by 2031. At that point, homeowners will pay taxes on only 33% of their home’s assessed value. This phased-in change will gradually shift some of the tax burden back to other property classes, restoring balance to the system.
    • Jan 13, 2026. New and expanded property tax credits will take effect on 2026 bills By Staff Reports
    • Jan 13, 2026. Letter to the Editor: Reader addresses county bond rating, By Sherrie Mitchell.

2026 Management Internal Control Program (MICP)

Uncategorized, , , ,

Last updated: Dec 31, 2025

General Information – ChatGPT Internal Control Programs County Level

Internal Controls – Prevention of Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and Mismanagement.  Both the state and federal governments have Internal control-related statutes, policies, and processes to provide assurance to citizens that tax dollars are used effectively and efficiently.

County – Need for a Management Internal Control Program (MICO). Unfortunately, at the County level, the State Board of Accounts’ (SBOA) scope of review of internal controls is primarily focused on finances rather than operations. Compliance by county offices is generally voluntary.  This puts the burden on county citizens to expect the county to develop and review internal controls, including providing an annual statement of assurance that the controls are adequate and identifies the need for a County Management Internal Control Program (MICP). 

Brown County – 2025 Credit Rating and Audit Reports

    • Credit Rating: The two-notch downgrade reflects our view of heightened vulnerability in management following continuous and numerous internal control findings.
    • Audit Report: Adverse Opinion on U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
      • In our opinion, because of the significance of the matter discussed in the Basis for Adverse and Unmodified Opinions section of our report, the financial statement referred to above does not present fairly, the financial position and results of operations of the County as of and for the year ended December 31, 2024, in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
    • Audit Report: Opinion on “Regulatory” Basis of Accounting  (1)
      • In our opinion, the accompanying financial statement referred to above presents fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position and results of operations of the County, as of and for the year
        ended December 31, 2024, in accordance with the financial reporting provisions of the Indiana State Board of Accounts described in Note 1.

State Board of Accounts (SBOA). Special Investigation Report  – Previous Surveyor – Dave Hardin – 84071I  Note: The Surveyor’s Office is among the areas that are outside the scope of audits by the State Board of Accounts unless a problem is reported.  A viable internal control should have prevented the problems.

    • This is a special investigation report for the Brown County (County) Surveyor’s Office, for the period November 1, 2018 to December 31, 2024, and is in addition to any other report for the County as required under Indiana Code 5-11-1. All reports pertaining to the County may be found at http://www.in.gov/sboa/.
    •  We performed procedures to determine compliance with applicable Indiana laws and uniform compliance guidelines established by the Indiana State Board of Accounts and were limited to records associated with the Surveyor’s Corner Perpetuation Fund. The Results and Comments contained herein describe the identified reportable instances of noncompliance found as a result of these procedures. Our tests were not designed to identify all instances of noncompliance; therefore, noncompliance may exist that is unidentified.

State.  Indiana’s internal control statutes were derived from federal guidance.  “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. At the federal level, statutes and policies include the following:

OTHER

Draft Ordinance – Capital Asset Policy BROWN COUNTY ORDINANCE NO (003)

ChatGPT – Draft Internal Control Checklist Capital Asset Policy

PDF File — Policy, IC, and Attachments 

 

 

BCD: Govt Updates Sep 23, 2025

Uncategorized, , , ,

Brown County Democrat (BCD) – Articles covering Commissioner, Council, and RDC meetings.

This post at BCM. 

    • BCM – Press Release – Arrest of former county Surveyor. Background: Following the arrest of the former surveyor (an elected position), various county offices received numerous calls expressing concern and requesting more details. With the advice of our attorney, the Board of Commissioners issued a press release to provide a county response.

Commissioners debate Music Center’s future, delay ordinance, give updates on projects
By Courtney Hughett -September 23, 2025 

County Council holds budget hearing, discusses IU partnership, legal costs, and court evaluations By Courtney Hughett -September 23, 2025

    • “… unresolved legal costs connected with employee compensation matters…” The information was presented out of context and without an understanding of the total situation and the facts.

    • An executive session was held with the council on Friday, Sept 19, 2025, and the issues were explained and discussed, which led to better understanding and support.  The council has no authority to dictate the decisions commissioners should make, which require legal support.

From homes to planning: Redevelopment Commission grapples with affordability and community input  By Courtney Hughett -September 23, 2025

    • A recurring theme of the RDC discussion was the need to update the county’s comprehensive plan with real community input beyond Nashville. Commissioner Clark told the Redevelopment Commission that their role could be to help with the public engagement side of the update. Members agreed that the plan should be broken down by community, Helmsburg, Gnaw Bone, Elkinsville, Bean Blossom, Story, and others, so that each area of the county has the chance to say what it wants, rather than Nashville dominating the process. Some communities, Clark said, are adamant that they want to be left alone, and that preference also needs to be respected.
    • The group discussed holding open-house style sessions in familiar places, such as libraries, churches, and fire stations, where residents could write down or speak about what they want and don’t want in their neighborhoods. Clark noted that the surest way to pack a meeting room is to change something close to home, especially zoning, because “people don’t know what zoning really means until it changes next door.” That reality, combined with the speed at which rumors and social media can spread, led members to emphasize the need for plain, clear communication. They said the county has to focus on the “why, what, how, and who” of any proposal so that misinformation doesn’t take hold before facts do.

Mt. Tea State Forest / Access via Pumpkin Ridge Road.  Notes from the Aug 20, 2025 Public Meeting

Uncategorized, , , ,

Mt. Tea State Forest / Access via Pumpkin Ridge Road. 

Timeline of the Project, Supporting Documentation

Notes from the Aug 20, 2025 Public Meeting

Executive Summary

The Mt. Tea State Forest access project has raised concerns about cost, environmental impact, safety, and communication with residents. While initial plans proposed a $7 million INDOT road upgrade, public feedback has pushed for more modest alternatives. Key issues include protecting the rural character of Brown County, ensuring fair decision-making with stakeholder input, and improving transparency in communications. Road options range from full INDOT upgrades to minimalist or county-led improvements, with “do nothing” also being considered. No final decision has been made, and commissioners have committed to ongoing updates and public involvement before moving forward.

History

Concerns

  • No evidence of public meetings between 2022–2024 to gauge community support or define the scope of the problem.
  • Commissioner Sanders (term began in 2022) was also unaware of such meetings.
  • At the August 20, 2025 commissioner meeting, citizens voiced strong opposition — highlighting the risks of pursuing solutions without clear agreement on the problem.

Decision-Making Process

Role of Elected Officials

  • Expected to identify the best solution for the county.
  • Must listen to all stakeholders and apply a transparent process.

Why the Process Matters

  • In controversial issues, groups typically fall into:
    • A vocal minority strongly for or against a change.
    • Many are indifferent or uninformed.
    • A persuadable middle who can support change if engaged.
  • Public input and open meetings reduce conflict and improve outcomes.

Citizenship and Decision-making

The decision-making process can also parallel a citizen’s responsibility when serving as a jurist, which includes: 

  • Listen to the information and scenarios presented from all sides of the argument.
  • Assess the facts and evidence, consider the closing arguments, and agree on a decision.
  • Deciding after hearing only the opening argument without a more complete understanding of the situation would not yield the best outcomes.

Stakeholders

  • Property owners (potential land sales).
  • Residents who use Pumpkin Ridge Road.
  • Residents in surrounding areas.
  • Countywide residents and taxpayers.
  • Visitors to Mt. Tea.
  • DNR, INDOT, and the Governor.

Elements of Good Decision-Making

  • Establish facts and assumptions.
  • Identify constraints and risks.
  • Define decision criteria.
  • Compare positives and negatives of each option.
  • Select a solution and implement it with a clear project plan.

Reference

Concerns with the Road Design

Issues Raised by Citizens

  • Environmental impacts
    • Threats to endangered species.
    • Water quality risks in ponds and streams.
    • Disruption of possible historical sites.
  • Road and construction concerns
    • Safety risks at a hazardous intersection.
    • Ability to navigate during construction.
    • Long-term effects on rural character.
  • Community and cultural concerns
    • Protecting Brown County’s natural beauty.
    • Preserving quality of life for nearby residents.

Economic Context

  • Brown County’s culture is rooted in its rural environment.
  • A large part of the economy depends on residents who live locally but earn income outside the county.
  • About 77% of wages earned by county taxpayers come from outside Brown County.

Project Cost Concerns

  • Original INDOT estimate: $7 million.
  • Many viewed the cost as excessive, leading to speculation about the project’s intent and scope.

Current Status

  • INDOT is preparing more modest alternatives.
  • Goal: reduce financial burden while addressing key safety and environmental concerns.

Road Options Comparison

Option

Description

Pros

Cons

1. INDOT 30 MPH Road Standard

Full upgrade to meet 30 MPH speed limit

Meets state standards, designed for higher traffic

Costly ($7M), strong community opposition, seen as impractical

2. Minimalist INDOT Option

Scaled-back version, possibly unpaved, lower speed (≈20 MPH)

Lower cost, preserves rural feel, similar to park roads

Less durable, details still in development

3. County-Led Upgrade

Local project to maintain Pumpkin Ridge as a county road

More local control, potentially lower cost

County bears responsibility, funding uncertain

4. Do Nothing

Leave road as-is

No cost, no disruption, preserves status quo

Does not address safety issues, may limit access

Top of Form

Funding & Safety Note

  • The 2022 INDOT plan was drafted to support a state funding request.
  • A 2025 survey conducted in Mar/Apr may allow for lower-cost alternatives.
  • Savings could be redirected to improve the hazardous Pumpkin Ridge–Hoover Road intersection.

DNR – Property Management

Citizen Concerns

  • Increased visitors due to improved access.
  • Mt. Tea is remote, with no water supply or privies.
    • Risks include fire response challenges.
  • Potential road damage from logging trucks if logging occurs.
  • Worries about future expansion to include:
    • Horse amenities.
    • All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) use.

DNR Response

  • Current plans do not include horses or ATVs.
  • Facility development remains limited (primitive camping, campfires only).

Communications

Ongoing Challenges

  • Limited citizen awareness due to:
    • Declining newspaper readership.
    • Inconsistent social media updates.
    • Low sign-up rates for meeting agenda notifications.
    • Reliance on neighbor-to-neighbor communication.

Effects on Engagement

  • Many residents miss notices of pending projects.
  • Lack of information leads to skepticism and opposition.

Emerging Solutions

  • Establishment of neighbor networks to ensure project updates reach more households.

Miscommunications

Public Misunderstandings

  • Many believed commissioners would vote on August 20, 2025.
  • In fact, no vote was scheduled.

Timeline of Key Events

Date

Event

Notes

2022

INDOT develops road upgrade concept

Supported by previous commissioners

2023

Funding requested from Governor

Backed by Commissioners + DNR

2022–2024

No public meetings identified

Raised concerns about lack of citizen input

May 22, 2025

Commissioners vote against approving INDOT agreement

Clark & Sanders oppose

June 2025

Executive session with INDOT, DNR, project engineer

Sought deeper understanding

July 16, 2025

INDOT presents video and answers questions

Commissioners postpone decision, seek more citizen input

August 20, 2025

Public meeting with strong citizen opposition

Highlighted environmental, financial, and cultural concerns

Key Takeaway

  • Miscommunication about the vote created frustration.
  • Clearer messaging on meeting purposes and timelines is essential.

The Way Ahead

  • The INDOT agreement will not be signed until:
    • A mutually acceptable solution is identified.
    • A project plan aligns with the terms of the agreement.
  • Key considerations moving forward:
    • How construction changes could alter project scope.
    • How modifications will be approved.
    • Risks and mitigation strategies.
    • Eminent domain authority will not be delegated by commissioners.

Next Steps

  • Progress updates will be shared at every commissioner meeting.
  • Special public meetings may be scheduled to allow deeper discussion of key issues.

Additional Information

Key Issues at a Glance

Environmental & Cultural Concerns

  • Potential impact on endangered species and historical sites
  • Water quality risks to nearby ponds and streams
  • Preservation of Brown County’s rural character and natural beauty

Financial Concerns

  • Original $7 million INDOT plan considered excessive
  • More modest alternatives under review
  • Possibility of redirecting savings to hazardous intersection improvements

Safety Concerns

  • Hazardous intersection at Pumpkin Ridge & Hoover Road
  • Road usability during construction
  • Fire risk from primitive camping without water access

Community & Communication Concerns

  • Lack of early public meetings (2022–2024) raised trust issues
  • Misperception that a decision would be made on Aug 20, 2025
  • Ongoing need for better communication between commissioners, residents, and agencies

Brown County Democrat – Articles on the topic

 

 

 

2026 – Managing Revenue from the Innkeepers Tax

Uncategorized, , , ,

Last updated – Aug 18, 2025   

Posts at Brown County Matters (BCM)

Discussion – County Council Work Session, Aug 12, CVC Budget – Starts at 2:40:45

IC 6-9-14 Chapter 14. Brown County Innkeepers’ Tax. How to change?  The County identifies the desired changes and requests support for these changes from our legislature (House and Senate).  Indiana’s Legislative Services Agency (LSA) makes the final changes to the statute in preparation for a vote by the legislature.   It can help to have a lobbyist support the changes. Unclear why any changes that have been approved for other counties would not be approved for application in Brown County.

Tourism can also be broadly defined to include costs for services critical in supporting visitors and tourism, such as 911 services, for example. 

County Council Working Sessions: (This information posted  at BCM)

Who Decides? 

New Revenue and Big Decisions for the County Council and Voters – 4 council seats are up for election in the 2026 primaries. Citizens will have the opportunity this year to question and challenge how the revenue from the innkeepers’ tax should be spent in 2026 and beyond. The council is required to hold a public hearing on the budget – date – TBD

    • The four open seats: District 1 (Gary Hewett), District 2 (Darren Byrd), District 3 (Joel Kirby), and District 4 (Jim Kemp)
    • 2026 proposed CVC Budget for the Revenue from the Innkeepers Tax
      • Discussion on the topic: Quality of Life Committee – For the Record 
        • As Brown County prepares to begin state collection of its new 3 percent innkeepers’ tax, members of the Quality of Life Innkeepers’ Tax Steering Committee held a wide-ranging discussion on July 23 about how the revenue should be managed, monitored, and allocated in the years to come.

At this point, it appears that the County Council could approve 5% for tourism, and 3% could be transferred to the county. This would help cover some of the costs associated with tourism and/or provide funding for projects that more county citizens can enjoy.

For context, voters can think of themselves as jurists. What are the arguments for and against a decision? Is the position supported with an understanding of all the facts and available evidence?

Additional context below. The link is to the articles on the topic in the Brown County Democrat by Courtney Hughett.

What’s new?  The County Council’s increase of the innkeeper’s tax from 5 to 8% may help dispel the assumption that the revenue from the innkeepers’ tax must be spent solely “to promote the development and growth of the convention and visitor industry in the county.”    Other counties have been spending the revenue in various areas that are not specifically defined, including quality of Life (could include public safety?), parks, historic preservation, and economic development (infrastructure).

Economic Driver? Another myth is that “tourism” is the economic driver for the “county.” Our county is funded primarily by residents who do not have a financial interest in tourism. Tourism brings in around $21 million in gross income, and county residents contribute over $511 million of taxable income (gross minus deductions). The county is funded primarily by income and property taxes.

Inadequate Plans.  RepresentativeUnfortunately, the belief that tourism is the main economic driver guided the proposed 2025 revisions to the County Comprehensive Plan, as well as the 2019 Economic Development Strategic Plan. Neither of these plans was approved by the Commissioners.  Neither had wide-scale community input, involvement, and support.

Convention Visitors Bureau. (CVB). The CVB is a contractor. Other counties do not have a CVB. Their visitor center is staffed by county employees, who are funded through revenue from the innkeepers’ tax. The CVB renovated and purchased the Visitor Center. How is this financed? The CVC can also contract with a marketing company.

Background – Funding. The state is primarily funded by Sales and Income taxes. The state allows an innkeeper’s tax (that the county manages) to help promote tourism and increase sales tax. The state expects the counties to cover all the costs associated with tourism, including sheriff and emergency services (such as accidents, medical, and fire), justice center costs related to arrests, prosecutions, incarceration, probation, and necessary infrastructure (such as water, wastewater, safe roads, and bridges).

Collateral. Revenue from the innkeepers’ tax was used as collateral for the loan to build the Brown County Music Center (BCMC). When the Little Opry burned down in 2009, the private sector showed no interest in building another venue. In 2017, hotel and other tourism business owners determined that a music venue could be sustainable with the support of  taxpayers and volunteers.

Delegating Responsibility? County elected officials delegated their responsibility to citizens for managing the venue to non-elected officials. This management group can also help determine profit and allocate the excess revenue. On profitability, the options can range from booking only the most profitable acts as opposed to opting for break-even by offering as many shows as possible. The break-even option would help attract most visitors who may reserve hotel rooms and frequent the other tourism-related venues. Note that if 100% of the innkeepers’ tax was budgeted to the BCMC, this would reduce operating expenses and increase the distribution to the county.

Profits? The management group, through an Administrative Agreement, also determined that 75% of the profits (if legal) may be allocated to the Community Foundation and 25% to county taxpayers. The county taxpayers, not the Foundation, assume the financial risks of the venue. As a result of the economic decline due to COVID, federal taxpayers provided a $2.7 million subsidy, and county taxpayers another $239K.

Community Foundation leaders have defended their share of the profit. The Foundation manages 18 million in funds, and its goal is to reach as much as 30 million by 2030.

The management group consists of 7 members (originally, it was 5). Members include one representative from the county council (Darren Byrd) and one from the board of commissioners (Ron Sanders). Sanders, representing the commissioners’ position, proposed this year that 100% of the excess revenue be returned to the county. His motion was not supported by any other member, including Council Representative Darren Byrd. Bryd has stated he supports a 50/50 distribution, with his justification, ironically, being a lack of confidence in how the county or future council members would spend the money.

The Administrative Agreement was approved by the Building Corp Board (3 members), the Conventions and Visitors Commission (CVC) (5 members), and the management group, which consists of 7 members. This group must vote on changes to the Admin Agreement. This Admin Agreement can be terminated by the commissioners, with the council having approving authority over any changes (if any) to the financial agreements. 

    • Building Corp Members. Robyn Rosenberg Bowman, Mike Laros, Matt Gray.
    • CVC Members: Kevin Ault, Jim Schultz, Lance Miller, Andy Szakaly, Jimmie Tilton.
    • Management Group.
      • Kevin Ault, Co-president, appointed by the CVC.
      • Barry Herring, Co-president, member at-large, appointed by Maple Leaf Board of Directors
      • Jim Schultz, Secretary, appointed by the CVC.
      • Bruce Gould, Vice President, appointed by the CVB Board
      • Ron Sanders (commissioner appointment) – “Elected”
      • Darren Byrd (council appointment) – “Elected”
      • Diana Biddle, member at-large, appointed by Maple Leaf Board of Directors.  Was on the board of commissioners that approved the current agreements.

Accountability, Costs, Trust, Priorities.  Note that one of the justifications provided for the 75/25 split was that there was little trust in voters electing candidates who could determine the best use of the money. Thus, there was a perceived need for more capable and objective decision-making. The county has millions of dollars in unfunded requirements, with the major portion being for bridges and roads. Additional funds could also be used to cover the risk of rising employee health insurance costs and to make the needed increases to the Rainy-Day Fund. Other costs associated with tourism mentioned above include sheriff and emergency services (medical, accidents, and fire), provided to the state park and county, as well as justice center costs related to arrests, prosecutions, incarceration, probation, and necessary infrastructure — such as water, wastewater, safe roads, and bridges.

Indian Hill Railroad Crossing. The cost to re-open the railroad crossing on Indian Hill Road to current standards has been estimated at $1.9 million.   

Fiduciary Responsibility.

    • CVC appointees include 3 from the council and two from the commissioners. They are bonded and have a fiduciary (legal) responsibility for managing the revenue from the innkeepers’ tax.
    • Question: Do Council members, commissioners, and CVC members (all bonded) have a responsibility to help ensure that the revenue is efficiently and effectively managed? How will they know? What are the expectations of the voters?
      • What is required to remove a CVC member for “cause”?

Wild West?  What is the constraint on how the revenue from the innkeepers’ tax can be spent?  General categories identified for spending include “Quality of Life”  and “Economic Development.” These can be and are broadly defined by the counties.  The county, through the CVC, can also enter into contracts with both private and non-profit groups.   

The identification and prioritization of priorities, as well as the management of the revenue, becomes the wild west in terms of spending and priorities. Tippecanoe County has been referenced as providing the most detailed information on how the revenue would be allocated.

IC 6-9 ARTICLE 9. INNKEEPER’S TAXES; OTHER LOCAL TAXES. 

Tippecanoe County is among the most specific of counties in terms of revenue distribution.  Note that there are no specific definitions for the categories of spending that include Economic Development, Historic Preservation, Projects in the State Park, and Quality of Life.  

    • Ch. 7. Tippecanoe County Innkeeper’s Tax
    • Ch. 14. Brown County Innkeeper’s Tax

Economic Development Funding for private ventures?   The council has considered a proposal to fund an apartment project where the landowner wanted to lease the property and pass on the costs and risks associated with development to the county taxpayers. The hope was that eventually an increase in revenue from income and property taxes would provide a return on the county’s investment.  Note that one of the most successful commercial developments in Brown County is Hard Truth Hills.  They did not ask for any taxpayer support. 

The county has attracted commercial developments without having to provide tax subsidies or tax increment financing (TIF). 

Additional Information

Clark responds to the article, “Tilton property back on docket.”

Uncategorized, , , ,

LETTER – My letter was published in the June 11, 2025, issue of the Democrat with the title: “Commissioner addresses Tilton Property.”    

This letter is in response to the article by Dakota Bruton, “Tilton property back on docket,” Wed, May 21, 2025. This rezoning issue involves decisions on the type of development that citizens want to support in their respective areas and the process they expect to be followed to ensure the best decisions for the county.

In this case, the initial zoning change of the property was from Secondary Residential (R2), Floodplain, and Floodway to General Business (GB), Floodplain, and Floodway. The change was opposed by surrounding property owners and residents, leading to legal action to stop the change. The case has been delayed pending the decision by the commissioners to reverse the change.

Typically, for many land transactions, before an owner purchases a property with the intent to change the zoning, they can choose to make the purchase subject to pre-approval of the change. This helps reduce financial risk, validates the desirability of the change by citizens, and helps to establish a fair market value for the land. This practice (pre-approval) was not followed in this case, as it was a private transaction. The estimated increase in the value of the change to GB by Tilton is speculative.

A decision not to obtain preapproval before purchase can also reinforce the perception that a change is expected to be approved if it is favored by two commissioners, despite any negative recommendations from the Area Plan Commission (APC) and Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).

In this case, Commissioner Wolpert spoke on behalf of the change and projects at the November 19, 2024, APC meeting. It was later confirmed that his vote to approve the zoning did not represent a conflict of interest. Commissioner Pittman typically justified changes to GB if the property was accessible from a state highway. This was not a credible justification in this case.

Pittman and Wolpert refused to delay the vote at the Dec 4, 2024, commissioner meeting to allow consideration of the changes being made to the Nashville and Brown County Comprehensive Plans. Comprehensive Plans provide guidance on zoning. Once the property was rezoned, the BZA was required to review the proposed projects – a private recreational development and an RV travel trailer park. At their meeting on January 29, 2025, the BZA did not approve either project. These projects provided justification for the change in zoning.

On the issues that Tilton raised in public meetings, which were also referenced in the article, a mistake was made on the APC application form, where I signed as an owner as opposed to the petitioner. This error was acknowledged as a mistake. The error was not considered relevant by the Planning Director, the APC, the APC attorney, and the County Attorney. Other comments Tilton made regarding notification were also determined not to be relevant since he was present at the APC meetings on the proposed changes. He also acknowledges attending the March 5 commissioner meeting, where the commissioners voted 2 to 1 for the petition to reverse the zoning change.

Regarding the change in commissioner meeting dates to decide on the rezoning, there was some misunderstanding regarding legal requirements, and commissioners were informed that there is a 10-day public notification requirement.

A question for citizens is, when a justification for zoning is based on a change that the APC did not recommend, had significant community opposition, and the BZA did not approve either of the proposed projects, what is the appropriate course of action? In this case, options included a petition submitted by the commissioners to reverse the change back to its original version.

At the commissioner meeting on June 18, 2025, citizens will be provided with the opportunity to briefly share their comments. Commissioners and the owner, Jimmy Tilton, representing William Jacob Capital, LLC, will have more time to present their arguments.

You can also share your opinion with the commissioners via email at commissioners@browncounty-in.gov

Tim Clark

Legal Notice – Published June 4, 2025 edition rezone legal notice june 4 2025 edition

Commissioner Meeting Notes, Feb 5, 2025

Uncategorized, , , ,

This post at Brown County Matters

Agenda Commissioner Meeting Feb 5, 2025 

Audio of the Meeting

  • Habitat for Humanity Proposed Project
    • 47.626 Acre Parcel
      • Divide the parcel into a maximum of 22 lots. Construct a maximum of 22 new homes in 7 years.
      • 3 Homes/Year (Years 1 – 6);  4 Homes in Year 7
      • Avg 1200 – 1500 sq ft per home
      • 3-Bed/2 Bath OR 4-Bed/2 Bath
      • Dependent upon selected families
      • Avg Appraisal Estimate: $240k – $300k +/- 
      • Approximately 1,350’ of “Old County Road #2” be added back onto the Brown County Highway Department’s roadway inventory.

Appointments – Boards and Commissions

Correction:  Letter of interest for board and commissioner appointments.  Andi Bartels applied for a CVC position – not the RDC.

  • CVC – Andy Szakaly and Jimmie Tilton – appointed by the previous Board of Commissioners and chose to remain on the CVC. Previous commissioners did not advertise the openings or consider all those who applied.
  • RDC: Jeremiah Reichmann, Chris Schneider, Alyn Brown
    • Correction: Andi Bartels applied for a CVC position – not the RDC.
  • Alcohol Beverage Commission  (ABC) – Appointment of Mathew Nelson.
  • Community Corrections – No applicants
  • Parks and Rec Board – Kyle Wagers
  • Property Tax Board of Appeals (PTBOA) – No applicants. Desired capabilities include experience in property appraisals.

Superintendant Report.BCHD Monthly Report

Brown County Republican GOP, Mar 1, 2025 Elections

Uncategorized, , , ,
Indiana Secretary of State – “Who’s On The Ballot” – Identify your District, Precinct, Township …
 
 
Your Precinct and District? The county GIS Map has a “layer” that identifies voter precincts. To identify Commissioner Districts, select “Index” and then County Commissioner Districts. 

Jan 31, 2025.  This post at Brown County Matters

Local Politics. Do you know the names of your PC and VPC? Do they live in your precinct? What happens on March 1, 2025?

There are 11 political precincts in Brown County. Republican Precinct Committeemen (PC) are elected in the primary in presidential election years. The Democrat elections for their precinct committeemen are in the off-years.

Elections for new officers (Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, Treasurer) in the Brown County GOP are March 1, 2025. Precinct (PC) and Vice Precinct Committee (VPC) members are allowed to vote.

The Chair can and does appoint PC and VPCs” to fill vacancies, and these individuals do not have to live in the precinct. Although PCs can select their VPCs, many allow the Chair to make the appointments, thus stacking the deck to help control who gets elected
.
Vacancies – Elected Offices. Only PCs vote to fill a vacancy in an elected office. Blake Wolpert received 7/11 votes to fill the Commissioner Vacancy when Chuck Braden resigned.

So what? The Chair can influence who should run for office, be appointed to boards and commissions, who should even get county government jobs, and …. be considered “In Good Standing.” 🙂

Clark Responds to Ruling by Region 9 Republican Committee

Uncategorized, , , ,

Last updated: 02/09/2025

A slightly shorter version – without the references, of the post below was submitted to the Brown County Democrat for the Feb 4, 2025  edition. The Democrat limits submissions to 800 words.   Clark Response to Region 9 Decision.

This post shared at Brown County Matters.

Clark Responds to Ruling by Region 9 Republican Committee
The more extended version with references

After years of attending county government meetings and documenting issues, concerns, and challenges, I chose to run for Commissioner to contribute to improving the quality of services provided to Brown County citizens. I outlined my motivation and strategy on my campaign website, TimJClarkforCommissioner.com.

One of the challenges that I saw was the current leadership of the Brown County Republican Party, which is headed by Party Chair Mark Bowman. The one-party monopoly on power in Brown County leads to a centralization of power. This power can be abused and used to dictate policy by influencing (1) who will be supported as a candidate, (2) who can be selected to boards and commissions, (3) who can keep and get county government jobs, and (4) who should be appointed to fill a vacancy in an elected office.

My candidacy was challenged by Bowman, claiming “Incomplete & untrue candidate forms submitted. Not affiliated with the Republican Party.”  The Brown County Election Board refused to consider Bowman’s argument that I was not in good standing and confirmed that I met the criteria to run as a Republican.

Bowman’s contention was that I was an Independent as opposed to a Republican who has an independent mind. An Independent voter would include someone who votes for the best candidate despite political affiliation. In my case, I have consistently primarily voted for Republicans but have also very occasionally voted for a non-Republican who may have had a more conservative position on issues than the Republican candidate.

It is interesting that Mark Bowman shares this philosophy. In an interview after the 2018 county election, where Republicans swept the elections, he was interviewed and confirmed his support for independent voters:

    • “Even as a party chairman, Bowman said he doesn’t like to see so many voters choosing the straight-party option. To him, that shows voters lack knowledge about the candidates. The choice listed from one’s own party isn’t always automatically the best choice for the job, he said.”  “GOP SWEEP Nov 14, 2018, Brown County Democrat.

After I won the May primary, Bowman publicly supported an Independent Candidate – Greg Taggart, to challenge my candidacy in violation of Rule 1-25. Taggart has stated that he was a Republican running as an Independent. Taggart also identified that he was an independent voter:  In his closing comments at  the  League of Women Voters Candidate Forum, on Sept 21, 2024, he stated, 

    • “I am not a Republican, I am not a Democrat, do not put me in a category. … if you want to say I am a Republican, I am not that…” 

In December, I filed a complaint with the 9th District Republican Committee against Bowman for violating Rule 1-25. I was supported in the complaint by Rich Stanley, Charles Shaw, and Ben Phillips. Rule 1-25 states: “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.” Many voters commonly choose to vote for the candidate that they believe would best serve the community. However, if you are in a party leadership position or an elected official, you should respect the documented rules of the State Party.  

On January 23, 2025, the 9th District Republican Committee held a hearing on my complaint. However, at the hearing, the District Officers ignored the arguments that I raised in my complaint. Instead, the District Officers put me on trial along with Rich Stanley without telling us that we were now the ones on trial instead of Bowman. We did not really even try to defend ourselves at the hearing because we had no idea that we were actually the ones being tried. We only realized what was happening after the hearing was complete and the District Officers issued their decision. In the decision, the District Officers dismissed my complaint against Bowman (which they never seriously considered). But they went even further than that by punishing me and Rich Stanley with bans preventing either of us from running as a Republican for a period of five years. Although the District Officers have no power to remove me from my current position as Commissioner of Brown County, if I had the desire to run for reelection in four years, I would not be able to run as a Republican if the Brown County Election Board supports this judgment.  (Reference: “Clark’s complaint against GOP county chair Bowman rejected”, by Dave Stafford, Brown County Democrat, Jan 27, 2025.)

The Region 9 Committee’s decision will be appealed. It will be interesting to see if the State Republican Party follows this illogical and deeply flawed decision.

At the hearing, Amanda Lowry, Chair of the Region committee, explained the unwritten rules that governed the committee’s decision:

  1. “The Republican Party is a Private Club with Rules.”
  2. You are NOT a Republican in good standing if you criticize the party or its members, vote, or donate money to a non-republican candidate—at any time in a person’s life.
  3. The rules can be selectively applied – as they were in this case.

Given this Region 9 criteria, President Trump could be considered a Republican “not” in Good Standing.

While we wait for a decision on our appeal, please remember that the election of new officers for the Brown County Republican Party is on March 1, 2024. The election is for the Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer. If you want to see a positive change in leadership, contact your precinct and vice precinct committee members.

Tim Clark, Richard Stanley, Charles Shaw, Ben Phillips