Commentary by Carol Schleif
When I ran for Carmel City Council, I promised the citizens of my district that I would do my best to make sure the Southwest Clay Township Annexation Settlement Agreement promises were kept.
Up until then, fulfillment of those promises had been frustrating, and I felt that I could best facilitate progress as a city councilor. To my astonishment, after constant reminders and attorney letters, multiple promises were breached. The promises were in danger of being lost forever, and the deadline to file a complaint loomed large.
Days before all promises were lost in July, NOAX, the committee of citizens opposing the annexation, was forced to file a complaint.
As secretary of NOAX, I helped craft the settlement agreement.
Recently, as a member of the city council, I recused myself from voting on an ordinance regarding drainage mentioned in the settlement agreement. I did so then and will continue to do so for items directly related to this complaint.
Months passed before conflict-of-interest comments arose by those close to this administration. One of my colleagues asked me not to vote on the budget, and another asked me to resign on TV.
Since then, numerous attorneys and judges have agreed that no conflict exists. However, this administration continued to spin facts.
For example, our city engineer was blocked from attending a neighborhood meeting in my district. The meeting was planned by our utilities director as an informational meeting for residents who wanted to know about services Carmel could provide them and the costs for those services.
Right before the meeting, our city engineer was told that it was a conflict of interest for him to attend, even though it was not directly related to the NOAX complaint.
As many of you know, it has not been my style to complain publically. However, blocking services to my district cannot be tolerated, and to prevent more spin, pertinent facts need to be shared.
Facts that were unique to this case were in the annexation statute (IC 36-4-3). It spelled out the rules for annexation. Remedies for not following these rules include a court order to:
● Submit a revised fiscal plan
● Block property tax collection
● Disannex
● Pay damages of 1-1/4 annual municipal taxes
● Other appropriate relief
NOAX discussions have always been about a revised fiscal plan of promised services to the annexed territory within time limits set up by the court.
Also unique to this case was the rule that organizations couldn’t file. Only property tax payers could file a complaint if breaches occurred.
Therefore, all NOAX officers had to file as individuals.
Though I have asked to have my name removed from the case, it was irrelevant because damages – should they be awarded – would go to all property owners of the annexed area.
Consequently, if annexation damages created a conflict, no Southwest Clay Township citizens could serve on the city council.
The annexation statute could never prevent representation of annexed citizens. It was meant to guide cities doing annexations, and to protect those being annexed. Protection from breach of promises by this administration was what I promised to those who elected me, and I will continue to do so.
Lastly, I have been overwhelmed by kindness – verbal and through emails – from citizens all over Carmel. I am sorry that my colleagues apparently did not read the annexation statute, but took the word of this administration and attacked me publically.
I do forgive them, this time.
As always, I promise to continue to serve the citizens of Carmel with integrity and honesty – unlike this administration which did not keep its promises.
Carol Schleif is a member of the Carmel City Council and secretary of NOAX, the committee of citizens opposing the annexation