WRT candidates host their own forum

by: Jody Veldkamp Monday, April 19th, 2010

In a press release issued this morning (Monday), three of the candidates for White River Township Board and one of the candidates for trustee announced a “meet the candidates’ night” to be held Wednesday, April 28 from 6:30 to 8:30 at the Mount Olive Lutheran Church on Smokey Row Road. (View location on map). The event will be held in the shelter house behind the church.

WRT_slateThe candidates include incumbent trustee Jay W. Marks and white river township board candidates; David Pollard, Greg Rainbolt and Margaret (Peggy) Young. The release states that these are “The only four township candidates publicly opposed to the current merger plan”.

Other candidates on the May primary ballot include current board member Mark Messick, who is not seeking re-election but instead running for township trustee. Incumbents Joe Acker and John Ebert are seeking re-election to the board and Forrest Chambers, former board member, and Kenneth Marshall are also seeking a seat on the board.

If you are a candidate for any White River Township office, or county office that serves the White River Township area such as sheriff, county recorder, council, etc. we encourage you to notify us of any campaign events or send us a letter outlining your views on any issue and we will be glad to post it our site. Send your letters to contactus@centergroveinc.org.

No related posts.

« | Home | »

8 Responses to “WRT candidates host their own forum”

Joe Said:

Is anyone else scared of the consequences if this Gang of Four were to take over township government?

The trustee has already shown that he governs with a very narrow scope. I’d hate to see what would happen if he had a township board inclined to agree with him.

Comment made on April 19th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Amy Said:

As a young and concerned citizen of WRT, I for one am elated that this “Gang of Four” has publicly denounced the current merger plan, and have found a common ground on which to support each other. I am in no way scared of the so-called “consequences” of these 4 being elected. At least I know where they stand on, what I consider to be, the biggest issue currently facing our township.

Comment made on April 20th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Kenneth Marshall Said:

There is a nugget of reality in both Joe’s and Amy’s comments. Both use the term Gang of Four, therefore I will utilize your reference terms.
There are a number of unanswered issues that seem to be lost in the grey area of the problems as hand. Amy is right in that “at least she knows where they stand” (the Gang of Four). The problem is that there are unanswered issues of funding, a more accurate reporting of what tax implications really are, and do the people (residents) really want the merger. Has there been a decision on current annexation court cases either?
So when the Gang of Four has decided for you and all citizens of the Township are we to assume that they (or one and his minions)know the answers to the remaining studies to be completed, court cases to be settled and the will of all homeowners? That is at minimum presumptious.
Here is a really serious question that is not being addressed:
There is a large sum of funds in accounts with the Township right now. At least $500,000 or more. Any measure of excessive funds with the Township would agree that this is a lot of money for WRT to have in accounts. The questions that should be asked are:
1. What will the Trustee (whoever it will be) do with the funds? Should there be Board approval?
2. Is there or should there be accountability to the Township since there is no submitted budget. Thus, there is no line item designation of those funds. Should there be?
3. Since no other Township Trustee (to my knowledge) in Indiana have health insurance provided by their Township, should the Trustee use any funds of the Township to provide himself health insurance?(The Board has turned this down before.)
4. Has anyone suggested that these funds be refunded in some way to the tax payer. (Other than I am suggesting it be considered)
5. There is going to be a vote in November on “the merger”. My vote and the Board’s vote is only 4 votes (5 if you count me). My gestimation is that there are about 40,000 people in WRT. Many are voters. We as a Township will decide the question. Not a Trustee and 3 Board members.
6. Thus there is a lot of “smoke and mirrors” and misdirection of priorities being played here. Let’s refocus on what WRT Trustee and Board are supposed to do. That is to run the Township efficiently and effectively.
I would like to serve White River Township on the Board to work with (whoever is) the Trustee. We need to eliminate stalemates. Get a reasonable working budget, that is not dictated by the State.
Elect me to WRT Board and we will get WRT moving again!
Thanks for reading this. And thank you Joe and Amy. You have helped me make a case to elect Kenneth Marshall I know it was a little long. I apologize for that much. Ken

Comment made on April 20th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Joe Said:

Amy:

The current merger plan is a very short-term issue that will should be resolved (by a “no” vote when it goes before the voters) before the Gang of Four takes office. I don’t see how it will pass without being totally revamped and Greenwood will not have the guts to do that.

The long-term issue we should be talking about and voting on is what happens to the large unincorporated area that remains. I have not heard a plan from the trustee nor the board to address this issue.

All I’ve see in the last four years is a trustee and board who gave the Bantam football fields away (that was a million dollar gift) and who completely botched the merger discussions.

I want a trustee who represents ALL township residents, not just Bargersville residents and the Bantam football league. I have my doubts that Mark Messick is that man, but I know for certain it’s not Jay Marks.

Comment made on April 21st, 2010 at 10:46 am
Ed Woods Said:

If you’ll recall regarding the Bantam football complex, the CGSD wanted to give it away. We have folks crying for parks and trails, use the funds from the Bantam sale to to build trails. I’m not into parks. In todays world, the need for police protection in those parks is an added expense to an already non-producing fund project.
I think that having 2 separate candidate’s meeting, even on the same night, speaks very poorly of the those in the township who want to have good government. To go into who asked who to come etc, is a waste of time. If one township “meet the candidates” night can’t be arrange, then maybe, in protest, we the voters should stay away from the polls. That meeting should include all candidates, from Sheriff on down. But two meetings, that’s nuts. Regarding the Jail proposal. I think enlarging the facilities for a prison population growth is necessary. Having said that, the .04 cents a 100 of property value is doable for 20 yrs. On the flip side, I’m concerned with the increased, rising cost of doing business and how does that get paid. My real concern are the two other pregnant elephants we have sitting in the room. IE: the takeover of WRT by Greenwood at a cost to the WRT taxpayers of 27-28% and the millions of taxpayers dollars it is going to take to keep CGSD afloat. Both of these are nothing more than pouring money down a sewer. Neither has no true concept of living with a budget. All this in just one township. I don’t see any need to let Greenwood takeover. I think a fix for all township schools is creating one county school district. While there do the fire districts the same, one county fire department.

Comment made on April 21st, 2010 at 2:00 pm
MARK DEVOE Said:

I believe one of the primary responsibilities of the WRT Board is to serve as a checkpoint on the actions of the Trustee. However it sounds like the Trustee has taken who he wants to be board members under his wing and by supporting their candidacy will probably have earned their unending (or at least 4 year) loyalty. After all, how could a Board Member say “no” to the Trustee whose support got them elected. Sounds like smart politics, but whatever happened to “checks and balances”?

Comment made on April 21st, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Dann Said:

Just like it is best if the same party does not control congress and the White House, I agree with Mark that it is best if there is a healthy tension between the “executive” (trustee) and the “congress” (the board).

Voting them in as a slate would be a mistake. The challenge is that Jay has not demonstrated over the last year or so that he “plays well with others.” He sets his agenda and does what is needed to accomplish it. Bright man, good politician, but I would not want to give him carte blanche by providing him a board he hand picked.

Comment made on April 22nd, 2010 at 9:23 am
Forrest Said:

I am surprised that Mr. Marks would hold a “private” political event for only him and his chosen White River Township Board candidates and subject his church to a potential IRS tax audit and loss of their 501(c) (3) tax exempt status.

A church has tax exempt status under the provisions of Internal Revenue Service 501(c) (3) regulations. A provision of that regulation is that a 501(c) (3) organization is in violation of IRC 501(h) if “it participates or intervenes in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office”.

Why would you ever consider putting your church in such a position? This appears to be either an example of poor judgment or lack of experience.

Comment made on April 27th, 2010 at 7:58 am
 

Leave a Comment