Another Illogical Government "Solution" in Jeffersonville Indiana

HARBESON: Shutting the door on business


> SOUTHERN INDIANA — At first, I really sympathized with Jeffersonville Mayor Tom Galligan last month when he was quoted in this newspaper as saying: “I don’t want somebody knocking on my door trying to sell me something.”

I don’t like it when politicians come knocking on my door either.

But then I realized he wasn’t talking about politicians, he was referring to hard-working business people and the city of Jeffersonville’s idea to stifle economic growth by interfering in their attempts to reach and interact with potential customers.

Galligan was supporting a moratorium on door-to-door sales and Jeffersonville’s City Council agreed with him. They even suspended the usual three readings so they could quickly and unanimously pass the moratorium.

I’m sure the mayor was quite pleased he didn’t have to knock on their door more than once to get them to buy.

The moratorium is supposedly temporary as they try to figure out how they will handle the activity going forward. I wonder how this will end up. I don’t necessarily care for door-to-door sales either, but it never occurred to me to use government to forcibly ban other people from engaging in the action.

But then again, I’m not a politician.

To be fair, the nuisance factor isn’t the only reason the city decided to declare this moratorium. Officials also said they were concerned about safety due to a “rash” of burglaries where suspects posed as salespeople and then robbed the place if no one was home.

I don’t really understand the reasoning applied here. Isn’t this like banning pedestrians due to a “rash” of carjackings at city road intersections?

And if the main purpose of this government action is to protect residents, then the moratorium as written is still a useless government interference because, as usual, the elected officials have allowed exceptions. In this instance the favored groups getting a pass are all tax-exempt organizations.

Criminals can just as easily pose as someone from one of these tax exempt organizations as they can from a for-profit business, so obviously a government decree would make no difference at all. It only has the potential to harm innocent business people working hard to support their families.

As a matter of fact, again based on the government’s own reasoning, a good case can be made that it’s the nonprofits that should be banned because people may let their guard down even more when they think the person canvassing their neighborhood is working for a charitable cause or promoting a specific church’s way to eternal salvation.

Not to mention the fact that plenty of people consider tax-exempt solicitations at their front door just as much of a nuisance as those coming from a business.

I just don’t understand the thought process that goes through elected officials’ heads when they support these illogical actions. Does it really make any sense to say that one individual can knock on your door and sell you popcorn so a kid can go on a camping trip, but another individual can’t knock on your door and ask you to buy ice cream so he can support his family?

The government will allow one person to sell nutritionally questionable cookies but another person can’t sell plain unbreaded frozen fish fillets?

Mayor Galligan says there are other ways for people to sell their goods and services, and this is true. Of course, the same reasoning applies to the tax-exempt organizations that solicit door-to-door as well.

Even though I don’t care for it, soliciting door-to-door is a method that some businesses and tax-exempt organizations choose to use and government should not interfere. If the mayor or anyone else is annoyed at solicitors of any kind, then all they have to do is shut the door.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson has found a simple, quiet, fail-safe method to get solicitors to leave and never return: She answers the door naked.

Does this Town Need an Enema?

COLUMN NOTES: The situation with Jeffersonville's Clerk-Treasurer Peggy Wilder has been going on for some time now. I wrote a previous column about it. After I did, two other local columnists wrote about it here and here. Ms. Wilder was silent for a long time, but then decided to do an interview with the paper which garnered front page attention. Shortly after that was published, she was arrested for OWI.

HARBESON: The Wilder way

By DEBBIE HARBESON

— I’ve changed my mind about Peggy Wilder. It was a good thing she did not resign and no, it’s not just because it’s been extra easy to find a topic to write about lately.

OK, look. I know you’re sick. I know you’re tired. But can’t you just lie down and put your hand over your mouth to stop the heaving for just a bit longer while someone at this paper writes one more time about this issue?

I need to write another column because I believe Ms. Wilder deserves a lot of credit for what she’s accomplished, even while barely stepping into her government office. She’s done a fantastic job of demonstrating, to me at least, all that is wrong with government and how it operates.

Let me explain.

If Peggy Wilder had resigned, I would not have been able to see how well our local politicians can stick together. If the 3M Corp. could figure out a way to package that, they could stop all further R&D into adhesives.

If Peggy Wilder had resigned, I would not have had the surreal experience of watching politicians remain eerily silent for an unusual amount of time. Oh, if only we could package that.

If Peggy had resigned, I might not have understood how hard it is to actually get rid of an elected government official. I might never have learned just how many rules, regulations and laws government officials write which make the process as difficult as possible.

If Ms. Wilder had resigned, I would not have observed the local state government representative, Steve Stemler, also remain oddly silent — that is, until the issue reached just the right level of ripeness. When it did, he inserted a press release filled with platitudes as smoothly as an Italian might insert a pimento into an olive.

If Ms. Wilder had resigned, I would not have noticed that in the state level, too, it’s never as simple as publicly speaking the truth to help persuade someone to do the right thing. No, the situation is merely used to assure citizens that it’s only a matter of the right government employee inserting the right government language to tweak proper government procedures to answer any question of government failure. Politicians are so helpful.

If Peggy had resigned, I would not have learned what is of primary importance to Stemler, which is maintaining the “public’s trust in its elected officials.” I would not have had the chance to think about how this constant effort to maintain legitimacy is vital to making sure the public continues to buy into this game instead of looking for alternatives.

If Peggy had resigned, I would not be able to watch as a group of disgusted and frustrated citizens organize an effort to clean out various local governments — and I mean really clean them out. So much so that for days now I’ve had Jack Nicholson’s version of The Joker in my head as he says, “this town needs an enema.”

If Peggy had resigned, I would not have thought about how easy it is to individually withdraw support, financial and otherwise, when something occurs as part of daily voluntary associations and how free we are to act, based on our own individual standards of acceptable behavior.

Finally, and most importantly, if Peggy had resigned, I might have focused much more on her personal struggles and been better able to compassionately extend my heartfelt support and best wishes that she finds a way out of her troubles. Instead, I see a front page interview from a politician making excuses, and unfortunately Ms. Wilder deserves all the credit for that.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson hereby formally resigns from ever writing another column about the Peggy Wilder situation.

Whether It's Joe Biden or Dick Cheney, I Don't Care

HARBESON: In this case, time doesn’t pay

By DEBBIE HARBESON Local Columnist

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — Jeffersonville’s Mayor Tom Galligan and City Council President Nathan Samuel sure get excited when vice presidents come to visit. At least that’s the impression I got after reading a recent letter to the editor they wrote.

What I don’t understand is why they think others should feel the same.

Not everyone nearly tinkles their pants in excitement just because a “high-profile” federal politician comes to town. Particularly when the purpose of their visit is to raise funds at private election campaign fundraisers.

We’ve known since Vice President Cheney came to town to campaign for Mike Sodrel that such visits cost the city money, and when the campaigns do not reimburse the city for the extra costs, it has the effect of forcing taxpayers to donate to candidates whether they support them or not.

And what do the taxpayers get for these campaign donations? Not a photo opportunity. Not a dinner. Not even a few bread crumbs. Some of them do get jam though, but only the traffic kind.

However, for Joe Biden’s recent visit, Hill’s’ campaign staff apparently offered to pay any extra costs the city incurred as a result of the vice president’s attendance at this private fundraising event. They understood these costs were directly caused by their event and were willing to pay for the services.

I love it when people are willing to take responsibility and pay for what they use.

But Galligan and Samuel apparently don’t understand the concept at all because they refused to take payment for those costs. This would be fine if the two of them paid for it out of their personal funds, but that’s not what they’re doing. They want the taxpayers to pay for it.

Think about it. Bills could have been paid by the people who directly benefited from the service, people perfectly willing to pay for the services they used. Yet these politicians turned down the money.

Surely they can understand the basic idea of paying for what one uses, right? So why would they not let someone do that?

According to the letter they wrote attempting to explain their actions, they think these visits are special just because they are “high-ranking members of the federal government.” They think local residents should feel proud and consider it a grand honor to pay extra when these politicians come to town. They say people should welcome the leaders of our great nation.

But these guys only come here because it serves their specific political purposes.

Both visits had a very narrow intent. It had little to do with the people who actually live here, and everything to do with maintaining their power and control at the federal level. Instead of feeling flattered, locals should feel used.

Fortunately, no matter what these two city politicians say, none of us have to get on our knees and blindly worship political leaders anymore. We threw that idea away centuries ago.

Galligan and Samuel also said that if the city did not provide protection, it would be sending a signal to leaders in Washington that they are unwelcome. Who said not to provide the service? Just accept the payment. Why is this so hard for these politicians to comprehend?

If they are truly concerned about sending the wrong signals they would do well to think of their own constituents. After all, what sort of signal do their actions send to a local small businessperson who sat in the event’s traffic, losing money because he’s unable to bill for the time? The very least these “generous” politicians can do is not make this taxpayer pay even more, by not accepting the voluntary payment for services rendered.

Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson never tinkles her pants in excitement when federal politicians come to town. She’s been known to do that when they leave though.

What's Wrong With Jeffersonville Indiana Government Officials?

HARBESON: Why the silence on Wilder?

By DEBBIE HARBESON Local Columnist

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — What’s wrong with Jeffersonville government officials? Oh, wait, I guess that’s a mind-boggling question with loads of answers, so let me pare it down a bit.

Why is no one in Jeffersonville government calling for Clerk-Treasurer Peggy Wilder’s immediate resignation? Are they afraid of taking a clear stand for some reason? Are they all just waiting for someone else to go first? Are they just protecting their own?

Of course it’s positively shameful that Ms. Wilder, who has finally been charged in relation to allegedly using city credit cards for personal transactions, has not already resigned. But from all we’ve seen from her since this first came out, that’s no real surprise.

Which means someone else in Jeffersonville’s government needs to step up. Why isn’t that happening?

Maybe it’s because she’s charged with conversion, which is exerting unauthorized use or control of someone else’s property. That definition does sound darn close to describing what they all do as government employees, so it could be kind of embarrassing to call for her resignation, I suppose.

Or maybe it has something to do with all the strange connections inside local government. For example, when the details of this case were sent to Clark County Prosecutor Steve Stewart, some wondered how he would proceed since Ms. Wilder is the ex-wife of Larry Wilder, who works as a litigator for the city and gave $1,000 to Stewart’s 2005 campaign while they were married.

Stewart took about six months to think this over — while the statute of limitations kept ticking — and finally figured out he should hand the case to someone more neutral, less connected. You know, like a prosecutor in a neighboring county who worked for Stewart a few years ago.

Mayor Tom Galligan and the city council say they have no authority to do anything about her position since she’s an elected official. What a convenient excuse to avoid taking a stand.

They pretend that they’re helpless because they can’t take any “authorized” action and voters will just have to wait until her term ends at the end of 2011. But this is one instance where they could actually use their positions to help their constituents without using the government gun. I guess that’s hard for them to comprehend, though, since they never work that way otherwise. Could that be why we are not seeing them speak out?

They have no problem speaking out and taking a stand about how tall your grass is, or how many used car businesses can be on 10th street, or whether you can allow smoking in your privately owned businesses, or store a gun in your car while at work, or whether other city employees get drug tested, etc. But when the city’s financial department head is shown to be inept and unethical in handling finances, well that’s just personal and they’re staying out of it.

We all know they could put on the heat and get her out of there if they really wanted to do so.

Now, to be fair, city residents could also be speaking out. They could write to the newspaper, mail flyers and stage protests near her office to call for her resignation. That takes time they don’t have, though, because they are working to pay for fancy canal projects and shiny new sidewalk benches.

Besides, shouldn’t citizens expect that those who claim they only want to “serve the people” actually do some serving and speak up when it really matters?

I guess someone has to get this going so let me say very clearly: Peggy Wilder should resign. Now, come on mayor and council, stop spending money for a minute and speak out on this.


Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson is trying to stop asking mind-boggling questions about government officials but they just seem to keep coming.