The Lawrence Common Council submitted multiple court filings the week of May 22 related to a petition that Mayor Steve Collier’s administration filed March 23. Among them were a motion in support of its request for attorney fees to respond to the petition and a request for a hearing in that matter, and the council’s official response to the arguments in the mayor’s initial court filing.
The council’s lengthy response denied specific allegations in the mayor’s March 23 petition and includes counterclaims against the mayor’s office. In those counterclaims, it asks the court to determine:
- That the mayor can’t refuse to make funds available for an investigation into his administration or to retain its own attorneys, and that the council’s appropriation for those purposes is appropriate.
- That the city’s controller improperly shifted funding between departments and projects in 2022; and that the controller or mayor must recoup those funds or repay the city.
- That the council’s resolution transferring funds to pay for its investigation into the 2022 budget is valid, and that the mayor’s office should release those funds and not block similar transfer-fund resolutions in the future.
- That the mayor’s office was at fault for failure to submit the 2022 budget, and that any expenditures above the council-approved 2022 budget should be restored to the city’s treasury.
The mayor’s petition was filed March 23 in Marion County Superior Court over the council’s decision to appropriate $250,000 to investigate who was at fault when the city’s 2022 budget was not submitted to the state by deadline.
Collier’s petition asks the court to declare the appropriation null and void, based on state statutes that say an appropriation cannot be made without the mayor’s recommendation. Collier’s petition also asks the court to rule that the council was at fault for the 2022 budget issue, because it allegedly failed to provide details needed for that budget to be submitted on time.
In its counterclaim, the council alleges that through the petition and other actions, Collier’s administration is attempting to avoid investigation.
“This petition is brought to seek a determination that the mayor does not have the power to determine the terms by which the council hires its attorneys to assist in the council’s statutory investigation of the city’s 2022 budget, and to declare that the mayor and the controller acted in concert and contrary to Indiana law to the detriment of the common council,” the counterclaim argues.
It cites state law that gives a city’s legislative body the authority to investigate the departments, officers and employees of the city.
The response also states that the council cut the mayor’s proposed 2022 budget by $3.6 million in fall of 2021 in response to financial uncertainty as the COVID-19 pandemic continued. There also was concern about specific expenses that would be paid from the city’s reserves rather than from anticipated revenue.
The council argues that it asked for line-item details about those expenses, and the controller did not provide them. Instead, the deputy controller worked with council member Shawn Denney, head of the finance committee, to identify specific expenditures.
“Councilor Denney understood that the deputy controller would work with the administration to apply cuts to specific budget items and the council would simply approve a budget and appropriations at the fund level,” the counterclaim states.
On Oct. 4, the council introduced the reduced budget.
The counterclaim states that “the mayor, his advisors, and staff, including the controller, conspired to thwart the will of the council by devising a strategy to cause the council’s adopted budget to be ineffective and to revert the budget to the 2021 approved budget. If the budget reverted to the 2021 approved budget, the mayor would have access to more funding than what was included in the (council-approved budget).”
On Oct 25, the council approved its final budget ordinance, again with the general reduction in funds and not the line-item details. The counterclaim states that city officials never told them the budget did not have the information needed to submit by deadline.
The council alleges in its counterclaim that there was no notice to the council that the budget it passed was not submitted until late November 2022.
“Over one year after the controller should have submitted the approved 2022 budget to the (state), late in the evening on Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2022 — the Wednesday night before the Thanksgiving holiday — the controller sent an email to council members directly indicating for the first time to the council that he did not submit the approved 2022 budget,” the counterclaim states.
The council also argues that the $250,000 it appropriated for the investigation into the budget issue was a budget transfer of 2022 funds, not a new expense, and therefore does not require a recommendation from the mayor.
The council’s counterclaim also states that during the controller’s deposition regarding the 2022 budget, he said that he moved at least $300,000 in consultation with his financial advisor and the mayor from professional services to salaries and wages without approval from the Council.
In his March 23 petition, Collier states that his office did inform the council and the council’s financial advisors before the deadline that if it did not have the detailed line-item budget cuts, the 2022 budget would not be submitted and the city’s budget would revert.
The mayor’s petition also notes that the council’s financial advisor gave a presentation to the council in May of 2022, and the mayor’s office held budget workshops over that summer. Collier’s petition states that each of those events included information about the reversion.
The case has been referred to a five-judge panel for review. At deadline, no court hearing has been scheduled.
