Commentary by Larry Lannan
I’m an advocate of lively, open debate. In my experience, if all the aspects of an issue are thoroughly and aggressively debated by both sides, in the end, the issue is settled in the best way possible for all sides.
Something happened at the Nov. 18 Fishers Town Council meeting that made me realize a lively, free debate does sometimes have a downside. Allow me to explain.
The Indiana General Assembly passed a measure allowing the Town of Fishers to enact an ordinance increasing the local food and beverage tax by 1 percent. The proceeds, estimated by the town to be $1.2 million per year, may only be used for purposes of lowering the local property tax rate or to support economic development.
Surrounding municipalities enacted the tax when the regional funding plan for Lucas Oil Stadium was put into place. Adding the 1 percent would put the Fishers tax on par with those nearby communities.
The second public hearing on the tax was held Nov. 18 by the local council. Several members of the community spoke at the hearing both for and against the tax.
When it was time for our elected officials to speak, Council President John Weingardt announced he is in favor of the tax if used for property tax relief with the byproduct of helping local school funding.
Council member Scott Faultless voiced support of the tax if used for economic development and criticized Council Member Renee Cox’ opposition to the levy. Council Members Mike Colby, Pete Peterson and Stuart Easley took no position on the tax at this meeting, but all sharply disagreed with Ms. Cox.
I’ve covered Fishers Town Council meetings for nearly two years. I do not recall seeing council members being this harshly critical of each other in a meeting.
After the session, three people in the audience came up to the media table. All three were new residents of Fishers. They had come to the meeting hoping to learn more about the tax issue. All said they had learned nothing at the meeting about the tax.
What they did learn, they said, was the council appeared to be badly split and they were not happy with the tone of the meeting. Their first impression of Fishers government was not a good one.
As council members deal with tough issues, keep in mind that citizens are watching. Three citizens walked away from the meeting with a lower opinion of Fishers government. I find that sad.