Some of the stories and interviews are in and of themselves shocking, but the general theme probably doesn’t feel like anything new or surprising: money powers political considerations, political considerations determine who has money.  For me, the compelling parts were the simple narratives and examples of just how much time and energy the people who ostensibly represent U.S. citizens spend thinking about and raising money, and what distasteful things they have to do as a part of that.

I also appreciated the reminder that for the most part, this system is able to continue because voters can’t be bothered to hold their representatives accountable to a higher standard.  However hard we might try to pretend lawmakers are trying to do the right thing or that our systems of government are only incrementally worsening, it really is a wonder that the country isn’t perpetually in flames.  (See how cheery I am after listening, don’t you want to join me?)

Thanks to Andrea Seabrook (Earlham College class of 1996) and Alex Blumberg for some really absorbing, eye-opening, depressing stuff.  We ignore it at our own peril.

If you’ve followed this blog you know that I am a consistent advocate for transparency in government leadership, and the topic was raised a number of times during last year’s election season.  I appreciate the paper bringing focus to this issue, and look forward to the conversations that result.

Here’s the full text of my editorial submitted for today’s edition:

Most people don’t like to have their judgment questioned or their mis-steps revealed, less so in front of other people. It’s human nature to want to be well regarded and to avoid embarrassment. So we can empathize with elected officials and other community leaders who don’t like the “burning sensation” that can come when their decisions or deliberations are exposed to the bright light of the public view.

But does the potential sting of that exposure mean we should shy away from the pursuit of transparency in those matters? Or do the potential dangers of power abused for personal gain, fraudulent use of taxpayer resources or other wrongs trump the temporary personal discomfort of those who have asked to be representatives of each of us in matters that affect all of us?

Maybe we can’t imagine a modern “Watergate” happening at the local or state level, and we know that most public servants are trying to do the right thing most of the time. But we also know that regardless of political party affiliation or the best of intentions, human beings are complex and historically subject to the temptations of influence and authority. We also know that in difficult economic times, there is no room for even the trivial mis-use of tax dollars.

So let our community leaders strive not just to meet the basic legal requirements of disclosure and transparency, but to proactively offer the documents, reports, data and on-the-record conversations that will make members of the public their collaborators in government efficiency, instead of their adversaries in a struggle for power and information. Let those who have volunteered to be stewards of our hard-earned dollars be completely accountable to our questions, our concerns, our challenges to their judgment…even when it’s uncomfortable, and even when it might lead to embarrassment. And when an elected official struggles with the burdens of disclosure or the challenges of transparency, let the rest of us affirm with our words and our votes that we will always reward those who favor sunshine over secrecy.

Putting aside the substance of the legislation for a moment, the whole debate has been a fascinating exercise in political framing:

Using “Right to Work” as a label is a clever and strategic way to frame what the legislation is about.  If you are “for people having jobs,” how could you dare be against their “right to work”? Any critic of “right to work” laws has to try to find some other meaningful label to use for themselves that isn’t derived from the original name, but in doing so they lose some of the attention of voters.  (From what I can tell, the phrase “right to work” was introduced when a group of business owners in the southern U.S. formed the National Right to Work Committee in the 1970s to try to work against union efforts.)

The “Big Labor” bashing that happened last year across the Midwest set the stage for the “Union” label itself to be tainted to some degree in the minds of many voters (“Wait, are those unionized teachers really just trying to squeeze out every last taxpayer dollar while they sit around in luxury doing nothing? Golly!”), and so at least in part because of this association, I don’t think unions have succeeded in being the rallying point for those who oppose these proposals.

A related frame that gets invoked all the time around this legislation is “creating a pro-business climate.”  If you are for “right to work” then you are for creating an atmosphere where businesses can thrive.  If you are against “right to work,” you must hate commerce, capitalism, business and the American Dream.  Of course we know that “pro-business” doesn’t have any particular meaning; someone who traffics in human slaves can say they are “pro-business” but that doesn’t mean they’re operating in the interests of most people.  But again, critics haven’t succeeded in presenting a suitable alternative theme – being “pro-worker” or “pro-living-wage” – and so the debate is framed around whether you are for or against business, period.

Another frame that’s emerged in Indiana is the idea of Democratic state representatives who have used procedural moves to prevent a quorum for voting on this legislation as “cowards” who are “shirking” their duties and who don’t have the courage to just come and vote.  Democrats have argued back that they are trying to stand up for the interests of their constituents, but it’s so effective for Republicans to use the image of “we showed up to do the business of the people and guess who didn’t?” to beat up on Democrats as insolent children, and so they’ve used it every chance they get.

In a culture that generally celebrates “fighting back when you’re being bullied” instead of “call out the bully for the chaos and disrespect they bring,” Democrats haven’t been very effective at calling those fouls.  The closest they’ve come (as seen in e-mails I get from my state rep) is talking about how the legislation was “rushed” and “rammed through” and then about how “disappointed” they are in this “massive mistake.”  By only being against what their Republican colleagues are perpetrating and lacking a frame that everyone can be for, they end up mostly looking like sore losers.

I won’t even get into the “class warfare” against “job creators” being waged by “job killers.”  You get the point: In Indiana and elsewhere, conservative Republicans are dominating the frame game.

If we put aside the frames and labels that polarize this debate, we could see more clearly what’s happening in the statehouse.  We could see a broken system of legislating perpetuated by vindictive, reactive and politically driven agendas that don’t necessarily represent the interests or priorities of voters.  We could see politicians manipulating the fears and relative ignorance of their constituents to go for the quick win in that day’s news cycle, instead of thinking about what’s actually good for those same constituents in the long run.

Even if it passes, the “right to work” legislation has been a failure and an embarrassment for Democrats and Republicans alike.

As a resident and employer here I can say that I think the intent of the bill is unhelpful for Indiana workers and a waste of taxpayer time and dollars to pursue given other more pressing needs.  But more significant and important for me is what the process and framing being used signals about the dishonorable intentions of lawmakers and the foundering condition of governance in the Hoosier State.

You might open a newspaper soon to see an ad like the one at right which appeared in my local paper a few days ago.  It encourages you to “Stand With Main Street” to protest “special treatment” of Amazon.com that allows them to forgo the collection of sales tax on online purchases, resulting in an unfair advantage over “every Hoosier brick and mortar retailer.”  I don’t usually see full-page ads related to Internet commerce in a market this size, so I thought I’d investigate the issues at stake.

The question of taxing e-commerce transactions is a bit complicated to be sure.  If you have a strong and concisely-worded position on it, you’re probably running for national political office, or a Libertarian, or both.

On one hand we can see the clear financial and psychological advantage that an online retailer has with customers who are weighing a purchase from a local store that charges tax against an online store that doesn’t, and maybe offers the item at a slightly lower price too. At the same time, that online retailer may be benefitting from the infrastructure that sales taxes others are collecting help pay for (setting up warehouses, trucking goods around state roads, etc.).

On the other hand, we know that laws around state sales taxation were created prior to the age of the Internet and that the models of online business and affiliate sales have completely changed the way the world does business, and current attempts to rewrite them in order to create short-term bandaids on ailing state economies are probably not in the best interest of business innovation, especially when they favor large retailers (online and off) and send small businesses and people who make a living as Amazon.com or eBay affiliates into a quagmire of tax collection bureaucracy.

(In my company’s work building online stores for our clients, we’ve experienced this firsthand; helping a small business calculate the city, county and state tax rates that affect what they’re selling customers and then keeping that information current can take up a lot of their time.  Services like taxcloud.net are helping make it easier.)

Some states are moving toward “origin-based sourcing” for taxation, where the tax rate is based on the county/state where the vendor selling the goods is located.  This keeps the taxation process simple (the retailer has to know their local rate and doesn’t have to worry about where the buyer lives or what the rates are there) and encourages governments to keep their tax rates competitive for businesses that might locate there.

Indiana is still a “destination” state, where the tax rate is based on where the goods are being sent.  Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, not generally known for advocating taxation, is supporting the move to make Amazon.com and others pay sales tax so that the government isn’t “picking winners and losers.”  But as others point out, the playing field of retail taxation is already off-kilter in favor of big businesses, which get tax credits, exclusions and special pricing that make it very hard for mom-and-pop shops to compete with them.

Back and forth, back and forth.

I don’t have a strong feeling about what direction we should go (hence disqualifying me from running for office), other than that all of this highlights how complex and outdated the modern system of taxation is, for online commerce and pretty much everything else.  When small businesses or people selling used exercise equipment from their basements have to hire tax law professionals just to sell online and be fully compliant, we’re doing something wrong.  I’m not sure the “Stand With Main Street” ad advances the conversation any, but it hopefully encourages more awareness about what’s at stake.

I think straight party ticket ballots generally only do a disservice to Indiana voters.

At best, it enables a kind of impulsive loyalty to a vague label that can mean very different things to different people.

At worst, it facilitates voter ignorance, allowing good candidates to be glossed over while other candidates are voted in based on affiliation instead of qualification.  (I was surprised in my own limited experience as a candidate how many people in Richmond said they thought I was probably a better person for the job than some of those running in their own party, but wouldn’t vote for me because of my party affiliation on the ballot.)  And as Doug mentions, political parties aren’t a concept that the state or federal Constitutions help us navigate very well, so baking them into our electoral process doesn’t seem quite right.

If someone wants to vote only for candidates of a particular political party, that’s fine, but let it be because they’ve researched who those candidates are and what they stand for, and then made their choices well in advance of election day.  And if this change to election law hurts Democrats because Democrats were winning on party loyalty alone, then so be it; that’s a problem for the party and its candidates to take up with voters.

For the moment, let’s put aside the horrifying fact that such a bill was even earnestly discussed or advanced in Congress, or that indefinite detention without a trial of anyone is something we’re willing to entertain as acceptable.  Let’s put aside the disturbing practice of folding fundamental changes to U.S. military and legal policy into what are essentially administrative budgeting conversations.  And let’s pretend that the president didn’t sign such a groundbreaking bill on a holiday, a Saturday when most of the country was known to be preoccupied with celebrating the particulars of the Gregorian calendar.

All those things aside, President Obama still signed a bill that he says he disagrees with.   That’s fine if the bill says that unicorns might exist or that the White House will be painted green; sign it, put it in a file somewhere, work out the details later.  But a bill that authorizes the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial seems like it deserves a lot more than the “I don’t like it but I guess it’s what we have to do” treatment.

President Obama tried to reassure us by saying that his administration won’t actually USE these new powers, and that he’ll work tirelessly to change the parts that concern him.  ”My Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.”

I don’t know about you, but the times we’ve left the questions of “interpretation” and “implementation” to the preferences of individual leaders seem like the times where we’ve done the most damage to civil liberties or to a national sense of security about the aspects of “American life” that are core to our identity.  In this case, the starting point is that the reckless and dangerous provisions of the Patriot Act from ten years ago have been expanded and then made permanent.  Even if Mr. Obama faithfully steers the entire federal government and military-industrial complex to resist taking advantage of these new powers, what happens when the next president decides it’s not such a problem to lock up a few people — FOREVER — without a trial?

I think the president had on obligation to veto this particular bill.

It was the one option on the table that would have forced revisiting of the discussion about this ground-shaking change with the urgency and attention it deserved.  Now that it’s law, we’re left with incremental attempts to clarify the language of the bill to hopefully do less harm and court challenges that could take years to get to a Supreme Court that isn’t known for its civil libertarian leanings.

Some will say that this is an unsurprising move in a broken political system that already facilitates the amassing of power by a few to the detriment of the ordinary citizen.  Others will say that it’s not such a big deal and that surely in the end it will mostly be used to legitimately and necessarily fight terrorism.  Both of those may be true in some regard.

But for me, it’s a new low for the promise that was the Barack Obama presidency.  For a man who campaigned on such clear ideals when it came to civil liberties and the role of the U.S. Government in protecting and maintaining them, the signing of the NDAA represents a true lack of integrity that no signing statement or philosophizing about “this is the way the world works” can explain away.  There are a lot of wonderful things about the Obama presidency, and there’s a lot of good that’s been done on his watch.  But I can’t begin to imagine how, with decisions like this one, the president will make the case to progressive Americans for his re-election.

Whether it is the 2009 Christmas Eve Senate passage of a huge, and hugely controversial, health care reform measure by Democrats narrowly controlling the U.S. Senate or, closer to home, Republicans and Democrats waiting until after a general election to craft their respective political handiwork, this is the stuff that alienates and isolates the public from those who have sworn to represent their best interests.

Through any such conversation we must of course be sensitive to Mr. Welch’s experience along the way.  I certainly wish him the best in recovering his health, and appreciate the years of time and service he has given to the Richmond community and the residents of District 5.  It’s not easy to be a political figure in the public spotlight even when you’re healthy, and so we know that it must have been particularly hard on Bing and his family to have health concerns and questions about his ability to serve in that role all mixed in together.

But when someone is elected to represent the interests of voters, their own story is not the only story that needs considering.  Calls for privacy and sensitivity are legitimate to an extent, but I think elected officials at any level should be held to a higher standard than private citizens when life events affect their ability to do their job.  When a health issue actually prevents someone from doing the job at all, or from making the case to voters that they should be re-elected, that’s when the interests of their constituents are most vulnerable, and the most in need of the protection that comes from extreme candor and accountability.

My perspective on this is hardly objective – I campaigned for most of a year for a seat on Council and now someone else will be selected after campaigning for part of an evening.  But one of the mantras repeated by candidates in all parties during the recent campaign was that in order to move Richmond forward, we have to be willing to have hard conversations about sensitive topics without taking it personally.   Talking about what’s best for the voters of District 5 and for City Council is one of those conversations, and those who would suggest that we shouldn’t go there because it might hurt the feelings of the Welch family, or who say that a thirst for information should be satisfied by just trusting that the right thing was done, are missing the point.

Make no mistake, no one is suggesting that any laws were broken or that the local Republican party isn’t well within its rights to caucus and appoint a new District 5 representative until the next election.  You could make an argument about what might be more ethical or “fair” to voters, but in this case and many others, “fair” doesn’t necessarily line up with what’s “legal” according to Indiana law or what’s strategic for a political party.  Like it or not, we have to respect that until the law is changed.

But the point the Pal-Item editorial makes (and that I agree with) is that if we want members of our community to feel like their voices matter in the course of electing and working with government leadership, then we must have a higher standard of transparency and communication on the part of those leaders.  If the motivating vision for would-be leaders in a political context is “win a victory at any cost” instead of “do the right thing for the community,” then we’re not going to make it very far as a city.

We don’t know what really happened behind the scenes with Mr. Welch’s health and subsequent decisions by his party about how to handle his seat on Council; their choice was to share as little information as possible, and only when repeatedly asked to do so.  In the absence of the information that should have been forthcoming, we’re left with the appearance that Bing Welch’s health issues were exploited for political gain, and there’s no forward motion for Richmond that comes from that.

Here were some of the phrases state administrators and legislators are using to describe the error:

• “eye-catching”
• “unique”
• we maybe need a “fresh set of eyes”
• “bank error in your favor”
• “We drew the Community Chest card”
• “glitch”
• “It did seem…those payments were light”
• “Christmas came early”
• “We know what happened and we’re correcting it.”

Am I the only one who’s a little bit disturbed at this trivialization of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars being hidden away for years, even if through omission or oversight?

Some of those phrases are from Governor Mitch Daniels, who you’ll remember was the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget under George W. Bush before Daniels became Governor of Indiana.  One can’t help but wonder if similar “glitches” were incorporated into tracking the federal budget.

But allow me to suggest some alternate phrasing of public statements for use by the government officials who are talking to the press about this thing:

• We really screwed up on a major scale!  $320 million is a lot of money.
• This is so embarrassing!  We are really upset that this happened.
• There is no excuse for this kind of incompetence.
• Taxpayers trust us to closely track and monitor the collection and spending of their hard-earned tax dollars, and we won’t rest until we’re sure that each nickel is accounted for.
• Our financial software test coverage is clearly lacking critical functional and unit tests, and we will immediately revisit the software engineering methodology used to produce the code that led to this error.
• We know that this is not “free” or “gift” money that we can think of as some pleasantly surprising addition to our budget.  We might have made different decisions about budget cuts and spending over the last few years if we’d had proper track of these funds, and that’s a tragic mistake.

And the list goes on.  The bottom line is that making light of a $320 million error only helps reinforce the public perception of incompetence and imprudence that would have led to that kind of error in the first place.

If they’ve any hope of retaining (regaining?) the trust of taxpayers, state leaders need to speak more sympathetically about the seriousness of this issue, and the equally serious actions they’re going to take in response.

Some highlights from the unofficial results [PDF]:

• 5,945 voters voted
• 2,717 of those voted for me to be one of the three members of City Council At-Large, 201 votes short of a win

This has been my first foray into politics, and it’s been an incredibly rewarding journey. As I’ve walked through neighborhoods in Richmond, I’ve had a chance to hear from residents here what issues matter most to them. As I’ve sat down with community leaders and decision-makers, I’ve learned about the complexities of building a thriving city in tough economic times. As I’ve talked with supporters and members of the media, I’ve enjoyed being challenged to communicate my hopes and views concisely and authentically. In these last nine plus months I’ve come to appreciate how much important work there is to do in this great town, and how many opportunities we have to make it better.

I congratulate the winners of today’s election, and wish them the very best as they take office or continue in their existing roles. I ask each of them to stay true to the promises they’ve made during this election, and to hold themselves accountable to the ideas and vision that they set forth in their campaigns.

My campaign would not have been possible without the gracious support and enthusiasm of those who have lent their time and talents in many forms:

Thank you to everyone who has approached me over the last few years to encourage me to run for office.

Thank you to everyone who put a yard sign up or passed out brochures and door hangers to your friends and neighbors. I know that for many of you, this was the first time you have publicly endorsed a political candidate of any sort, and I’m honored by that.

Thank you to everyone who gave financial support to my campaign. Your donations helped get the word out in tangible, effective ways.

Thank you to my fellow candidates for putting yourselves out there for public scrutiny in the name of service to this community. Your time and effort has benefited Richmond.

I especially appreciate the ways in which fellow candidate Mike Bennett and I were able to partner around our shared messages, and the care and optimism with which he’s conducted himself throughout this campaign.

Thank you to the Palladium-Item and WCTV for creating multiple venues and resources for voters to learn in-depth about the candidates, and to other media outlets like WHON and RadioTroy.com for covering the election through candidate interviews.

Thank you to the Chamber of Commerce, the Human Rights Commission, the Center City Development Corporation and the Student Initiative for Equality and Justice for sponsoring various debates and forums.

Thank you to the many government officials and past candidates who helped me navigate the rules and customs of local elections.

Thank you to my friends and coworkers who have endured my unusual schedule and slightly scattered demeanor over this past year.

Thank you to my family members who have cheered me on from a distance.

Thanks to other individuals who have made special contributions of their time and talents: Emily Palmer; Roland Kreager; Cindi Goslee; Brett Stewart; Aaron Nell; Welling Hall; Justin O’Brien; my mom, Cynthia Hardie; Katy Elmore, Darren Palmer, Mark Stosberg; Matt Richter; Mayor Sally Hutton; Councilwoman Kelley Cruse-Nicholson; Sue Roberson.

A very special thank you goes to my wife Kelly. Over the last year we’ve had some amazing adventures together, some planned and some not, some wonderful and some difficult, and throughout she’s been a steady and encouraging presence that was essential to my own energy and passion for this race. As in the primary, Kelly challenged me to be the best candidate I could be while supporting and loving me all the way.

Even though I won’t be serving as a member of City Council, I’m committed to remaining an active participant in the work of making Richmond a better place, and I’m excited for the conversations and work that will continue in the coming months and years.  Stay tuned to this website for a forthcoming announcement about ways you can be a part of that.

I want to be careful to say that I don’t write about this trend in this space with any promise or implication that my election or anyone else’s could prevent individual crimes or save lives.  We know that no elected official and not even the best trained and funded police forces can prevent individual violent crimes when there are so many other background factors that go into these horrific events.

But I think our reaction to this trend as a community will speak greatly about our future prospects for building a version of Richmond that is safe, vibrant and thriving.

If we follow initial temptations to drift toward finger-pointing, increasing fear, vigilante justice and further isolation from each other as a solution, we risk unhelpfully turning against each other as members of an inter-dependent community.  In tough economic times, it is precisely because of increasing fear and isolation that the most troubled and under-served individuals in our society turn to more and more desperate and dangerous actions to survive.

People talk often about wanting smaller government and more individual freedoms, but a city with those qualities is also a city made up of people who know how to work together despite differences, to care for those among us who are at risk or in need, and to engage in our shared responsibilities around building relationships and resolving conflict, instead of abdicating that responsibility to centralized authority figures or resorting to violence.

So, how does a community address this particular kind of troubling trend? Is it about community policing and neighborhood watches and more funding for law enforcement? Maybe.

But could it also involve more interpersonal accountability, healthier families and neighborhoods, cultural shifts away from inherent fear of those who do not look or act like we do, examining the media messages we consume and what they encourage about problem-solving, better education of our children, and new models for how individuals can be valued, have self-worth and make a living? I think so.

City Council and city government has a role to play in that, but so do we all. It’s an intricate puzzle and no one elected official, election or legislative decision is going to affect our violent crime rate overnight. But if we step back from a fear-based response and look at the big picture, we can as a community decide to make changes that begin to address this and all of the interrelated issues we face.