Indianapolis City Council to Codify Members' Corruption?
In an unbelievable moment Monday night, the City-County Council's bipartisan Committee to offer a proposed ethics code for itself was like a bunch of foxes agreeing to limit themselves on how many hens and eggs they can steal to meet their 5,000 quota per trip to the hen house. Leaving the gate open reveals a new way of transparency, as only their eyes see the money in exchange for favors. We're supposed to let THEM determine when to abstain due to a conflict of interest, which has no teeth in it at all and is tantamount to endorsing the dishonest gain of public money, otherwise known as graft? Why not let thieves legally agree not to rob more than $5,000 per bank on a given break-in? Anything more than $5,000 they should voluntarily agree leave inside the bank.
Virtually codifying their own corruption, "We picked an amount that we thought would be achievable," said Democrat Mary Moriarty Adams, who co-chaired the committee. "But it's always up to the person to abstain."
Ok, so the problem is so bad with Council members that the Council committee endorses $5,000 amount of graft limit as a given speedbump and assumes the member will obey voluntarily the speed limit in the future as honor among thieves.
Excuse me, but if the Council is this rife with corruption and this Committee has no strength to protect our tax dollars, then investigate the lot of them. We need not recite the fiscal stupidity in allocation of CIB funds which operates for 10 years in the red, and conflicting interest malfeasance inherent in their application with no oversight. After all, the Committee doesn't want to be "overly restrictive in a part-time legislative body where members have wide-ranging business interests." The Council has made itself look not only inept but legalizing its own fleecing of Hoosiers