EXCERPTS FROM BREWINGTON'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

EXCERPTS FROM:

PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS BY A PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY
Daniel P Brewington v Sheriff Michael Kreinhop
Filed 11 August 2011with the Southern District of Indiana Federal Court

DEARBORN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT II, DEARBORN COUNTY, INDIANA, 215 W. HIGH STREET,
LAWRENCEBURG, INDIANA 47025.

I AM NOT CONVICTED AT THE PRESENT TIME. I AM BEING
HELD IN THE DEARBORN COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER AWAITING— SEE ATTACHED…CONTINUED RESPONSE:
trial in the Dearborn Superior Court II on charges no knowledgeable prosecutor would consider filing based on the discovery provided or the current law. The Court has assigned two attorneys on separate occasions to my case to represent me and the attorneys failed to meet with me to discuss trial preparation, witnesses, or strategy concerning my case. The first attorney withdrew from my case alleging he had a conflict of interest after I refused to accept a plea agreement. The attorney alleged he had a conflict because the attorney had other cases pending before the Judge who is a witness on the current charges. The second attorney has failed or refused to meet with me to discuss trial preparation, there are no witnesses subpoenaed on my behalf, and the trial is one week away. A copy of the docket sheet is attached. I have been deprived of the ability to meet with my Ohio attorney since I was incarcerated in Dearborn County, Indiana, because of a change in the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center rules restricting access to Indiana attorneys only. My Ohio attorney obtained admission to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Indiana and the Sheriff refused to admit the Ohio attorney licensed by the Federal District Court until checking with "someone" to determine whether admission by the Federal District Court was sufficient to permit the attorney to meet with me.

(b) Criminal docket or case number (if you know): 15D02-1103-FD-084

I AM NOT CONVICTED OF ANY CRIMES AT THE PRESENT TIME. I AM CHARGED WITH THREE COUNTS OF INTIMIDATION BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCACY BLOG/WEBSITES THAT I MAINTAINED SINCE SEPTEMBER 2008. THERE IS NO THREAT TO ANYONE ON THE BLOGSITE. THE PROSECUTOR, F. AARON NEGANGARD, HAS COBBLED TOGETHER ALL INFORMATION ON MY BLOG/WEBSITE ALLEGING THE TOTALITY OF MY PUBLIC WRITINGS ARE NOT PROTECTED SPEECH PERMITTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE WRITINGS WERE INTIMIDATING— SEE ATTACHED…CONTINUED RESPONSE:
to public officials; thus restricting my free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment and violating the Constitution of the United States. I am also charged with attempting to commit obstruction of justice, perjury, and unlawful disclosure of grand jury proceedings. The crimes are alleged to be committed in a two year period and a more targeted period has not been identified by the prosecutor or obtained by any attorney assigned to represent me in the case.



If you entered a guilty plea to one count or charge and a not guilty plea to another count or charge, what did you plead guilty to and what did you plead not guilty to?
I DID NOT PLEAD GUILTY TO ANY CHARGE AND I WILL NOT PLEAD GUILTY TO ANY CHARGES. I AM BEING DETAINED IN VIOLATION OF LAW (FIRST AMENDMENT), DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, THE RIGHT TO A REASONABLE BOND, THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, AND THE RIGHT TO MEDICAL TREATMENT. THE JUDGE WHO SET MY BOND IS AN ACQUAINTANCE OF THE PROSECUTING WITNESS AND THE JUDGE SET MY BOND AT $600,000.00 AND THEN RECUSED HERSELF FROM
MY CASE ALLEGING THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I HAVE BEEN INCARCERATED SINCE MARCH 11, 2011 WITHOUT A PRETRIAL HEARING UNTIL JULY 18, 2011, NO MEDICATION, AND WITHOUT EFFECTIVE COUNSEL TO ASSIST ME OR REPRESENT ME_ I ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN A BOND REDUCTION HEARING FOR MONTHS AND MY COURT — SEE ATTACHED…CONTINUED RESPONSE:
attorneys failed and refused to obtain a hearing on the bond reduction request. I have attempted to obtain medication through the jail and I have been denied medication prescribed by my physicians for years to assist in the preparation of my case. I pleaded not guilty to all charges.

I DID NOT APPEAL AS I HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED. I AM BEING HELD IN THE DEARBORN COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL TO PREPARE MY CASE. I WAS ARRAIGNED WITHOUT A PUBLIC DEFENDER OR ANYONE TO ASSIST ME AT THE INITIAL BOND HEARING OR ARRAIGNMENT. THE COURT APPOINTED ONE PUBLIC DEFENDER WHO DID NOTHING TO ASSIST ME AND THE SECOND PUBLIC DEFENDER REFUSES
TO MEET WITH ME CONCERNING MY CASE TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL. SEE ATTACHED… CONTINUED RESPONSE:
I am unable to obtain a bond hearing because I am denied effective assistance of counsel or the counsel appointed failed to take any affirmative steps to represent me. The first counsel/public defender appointed withdrew from my case alleging a conflict of interest with the prosecuting witness but it took the attorney nearly two months for the attorney to appreciate the conflict existed and during the two month period, the attorney did nothing. Due to the recusal of the first two judges in the case, it took another month for the third judge appointed to set a hearing and grant the first attorney's motion to withdraw. The third judge set a trial date knowing that I did not have counsel at the time the trial date was set and that I never had effective assistance of counsel at any time during the period of my incarceration.

I DID NOT APPEAL. DEARBORN COUNTY PROSECUTOR NEGANGARD FAILS TO
UNDERSTAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND INDICTED ME FOR WRITING AOBUT
PUBLIC OFFICIALS. THE PROSECUTOR HAS DELIVERED APPROXIMATELY 1,400
PAGES OF DISCOVERY, MANY PAGES DEAL WITH JUSTICES FROM THE APPELLATE AND SUPREME COURTS, THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON ADVISERS AND MEMBERS, AND SUPREME COURT IP ADDRESSES--- SEE ATTACHED… CONTINUED RESPONSE:
that visited my websites during the course of the appeal of my divorce case in 2010; all of which could be subject to subpoenas, testimony, etc., if any of the attorneys would meet with me. The Appellate and Supreme Court of Indiana are unable to rule on matters where the prosecution's evidence requires the defendant to subpoena information from the high courts in order to prepare a defense for trial.


GROUND ONE:
VIOLATION OF MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. I WAS ARRESTED FOR MAINTAINING A COURT—REFORM ADVOCACY WEBSITE AND PUBLISHING MY INTERNET WRITINGS.
(a) Supporting facts (Do not argue or cite law. Just state the specific facts that support your claim.):
I HAVE NOT INTIMIDATED ANYONE AT ANYTIME CONCERNING MY INTERNET WRITINGS. THE PROSECUTOR CANNOT IDENTIFY SPECIFIC ACTS OR INCIDENTS CONCERNING THE ALLEGED CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
MY INTERNET POSTINGS CONCERN THE FOLLOWING: DEARBORN CIRCUIT JUDGE JAMES HUMPHREY SERVED AS SPECIAL JUDGE IN MY DIVORCE CASE WHICH ORIGINATED IN RIPLEY COUNTY, INDIANA. HUMPHREY ASSUMED THE ROLE OF SPECIAL JUDGE WHEN JUDGE CARL H. TAUL, THE ORIGINAL JUDGE IN THE DIVORCE CASE, RECUSED HIMSELF AFTER EX PARTE CONTACT WITH THE CUSTODY EVALUATOR, EDWARD CONNER, ASSIGNED TO MY DIVORCE CASE.
CRITICIZED THE SLOPPY EVALUATION OF EDWARD CONNER, WHO ADMITTED THE REPORT HE SUBMITTED CONTAINED "NUMEROUS ERRORS AND OVERSIGHTS." THE EVALUATOR WAS NOT LICENSED BY THE STATE OF INDIANA AT THE TIME ASSIGNED BY JUDGE TAUL TO PRACTICE PSYCHOLOGY IN THE STATE OF INDIANA AND THE EVALUATOR DENIED ME ACCESS TO THE
CUSTODY EVALUATION FILE DURING THE PERIOD I REPRESENTED MYSELF- SEE ATTACHED… CONTINUED RESPONSE:
as a pro se litigant in the divorce case, petitioner began expressing his views and opinions on websites and public forums. Judge Humphrey held a hearing on my internet writings after petitioner's wife filed a motion concerning his postings on the internet. At the time of the hearing on petitioner wife's motion on the internet postings, Judge Humphrey denied petitioner wife's request to remove the writings from the internet after finding that petitioner's writings were neither harassing nor threatening to petitioner's children or his wife. A few months later, Judge Humphrey terminated petitioner's parenting time stating: "The court is most concerned about husband's irrational behavior and attacks on Dr. Connor," who was the unlicensed custody evaluator appointed by the Court that submitted a custody evaluation report containing "numerous errors and oversights," gave conflicting excuses why he would not release the case file contrary to his own contract with the petitioner, and IC 31-17-2-12. Despite Connor being the only professional to participate in the divorce proceedings, Judge Humphrey disregarded Dr. Connor's recommendations of near equal parenting time and terminated all of petitioner's parenting time on August 18, 2009. One of the stipulations of the petitioner regaining normal parenting time was that the petitioner was required to remove petitioner's internet content that criticized the court system and Dr. Conner. When the petitioner continued to exercise his right to free speech through continued internet postings, Judge Humphrey filed a criminal complaint against petitioner with the Dearborn County Prosecutor on or about August 24, 2009. Judge Humphrey failed to disclose the fact that he filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and continued to preside over petitioner's divorce case for nearly ten months, setting and vacating hearings; and further denying the petitioner's ability to regain parenting time with his children.
…….

At the petitioner's arraignment, the deputy prosecutor, Joseph Kisor, argued that petitioner should have a high bond because petitioner had no respect for the prosecutor in petitioner's public views and writings. The Dearborn County elected officials believe they are bullet proof from criticism and merely jail or indict people who refuse to refrain from criticizing their job performance.
I was arrested for maintaining court—reform advocacy websites and my public internet writings…..

(b) If you did not exhaust your state remedies on Ground One, explain why:
THE STATE APPELLATE COURT AND INDIANA SUPREME COURT ACCESSED MY WEBSITE INADVANCE OF CONSIDERING MY DIVORCE CASE AND BEFORE THE RECORD WAS TRANSMITTED TOTHE APPEALS COURT. FURTHER THE APPELLATE COURT AND SUPREME COURT UPHELD THEDENIAL OF MY VISITATION RIGHTS WITH MY CHILDREN CONDITIONED ON THE SURRENDER OF MYFIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO BLOG CONCERNING THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.

GROUND TWO:
DENIAL OF MY RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT ARRAIGNMENT AND ALL PERIODS DURING MY INCARCERATION.
(a) Supporting facts (Do not argue or cite law. Just state the specific facts that support your claim.):
I WAS DENIED A PUBLIC DEFENDER AT MY ARRAIGNMENT IN THE DEARBORN COUNTY COURTS AND THE JUDGE REFUSED TO APPOINT COUNSEL AT MY ARRAIGNMENT. THE JUDGE, WHO HAD A CONFLICT, SET MY BOND AT $600,000.00. THE SAME JUDGE WHO RECUSED HERSELF DUE TO A CONFLICT ASSIGNED COUNSEL TO ME WHO FAILED TO TAKE ACTION TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL,
ATTEMPT TO HAVE THE BOND REDUCED, OR AT ANY TIME MEET WITH ME TO DISCUSS TRIAL STRATEGY. THE ATTORNEY WITHDREW FROM MY CASE TWO MONTHS AFTER BEING APPOINTED ALLEGING HE HAD A CONFLICT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN READILY APPARENT UPON HIS APPOINTMENT. THE ATTORNEY PERMITTED ME TO SIT IN JAIL WITHOUT ANY ASSISTANCE TO
RESOLVE MY CASE. FURTHER, THE DELAYED WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL IMPAIRED MY ABILITY TO OBTAIN A BOND HEARING. THE SECOND ATTORNEY APPOINTED HAS FAILED TO MEET WITH ME TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL AND SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO TRIAL, I HAVE NO WITNESSES SUBPOENAED, NO ONE HAS BEEN DEPOSED, NO EXPERTS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED, AND I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO
REVIEW ANY DISCOVERY PROVIDED BY THE PROSECUTOR WITH THE ATTORNEY.
I am attaching a copy of the computer Chronological Case Summary from my case which reflects the activity or lack of activity on my case in Dearborn County, Indiana, by the attorneys assigned to my case.
(b) If you did not exhaust your state remedies on Ground Two, explain why:
THERE IS NO STATE REMEDY WHEN THE PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE ARE AWARE I AM INCARCERATED AND AWAITING TRIAL. THE PROSECUTOR IS ATTEMPTING TO GET ME TO TAKE A DEAL TO RESOLVE THE CASE AND I REFUSE. THE PROSECUTOR KNEW WHEN HE REQUESTED A HIGH BOND THAT I DID NOT POSE A RISK TO ANYONE. I HAVE A PRIOR ARREST FOR OVI APPROXIMATELY 16 YEARS AGO AND NOTHING ELSE ON MY RECORD. THE DIE WAS CAST WHEN THE INITIAL JUDGE SET MY BOND AT A HIGH LEVEL AT THE REQUEST OF THE PROSECUTOR.

GROUND THREE:
I HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF MY LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS AS I WAS NOT PERMITTED TO DEFEND MY PUBLIC POSTINGS DURING THE GRAND JURY…..

To date, the only accusation/allegation of a written threat is found in the Dearborn County Special Crimes Unit report dated 10/28/2009. The Special Crimes Unit report included the petitioner's statement: "Any person, law enforcement agency, etc., who takes action against [Daniel Brewington] for protecting [Daniel Brewington's] children and the public from the child abducting tactics of Judge Humphrey will be held personally responsible for their actions." The report stated that Judge Humphrey viewed the statement "as a threat to his and his family's personal safety." It was on 8/24/09 that Judge Humphrey claimed that my comment caused him to fear for the personal safety of his entire family. Rather than withdraw from the case out of his alleged concern for his family, Judge Humphrey continued to preside over petitioner's case until, on or about, June 9, 2010, when he sought revenge against petitioner by setting and vacating hearings and denying petitioner access to the courts. It wasn't until February 15, 2011, which happened to be five days after the Indiana Supreme Court dismissed petitioner's complaint against Prosecutor Negangard, that Negangard made petitioner the target of a grand jury investigation. Despite there being no evidence of any illegal threats, on March 11, 2011, Judge Blankenship set my bond at $600,000 in Dearborn County's state sponsored criminal libel suit against petitioner on behalf of both appointed and elected public officials. Rather than placing the burden of proof on public officials to demonstrate in a civil court that petitioner's writings were libelous, Dearborn County violated petitioner's rights to due process by incarcerating petitioner until petitioner can prove that petitioner's public opinions of public officials are not libelous. It is unconstitutional to place the burden on petitioner to convince a jury that petitioner's opinions are facts because an opinion is purely subjective.
The Judge who recused herself set my bond at $500,000 surety and $100,000 cash with a restriction that petitioner could not post anything about the case on the internet, while leaving the prosecutor's office with the freedom to publicly express its own views and opinions on the case. The bond set by Judge Blankenship makes no mention of how I may be a threat to society. The Judge rationalized the highly excessive bond by citing the 2007 custody evaluation, which stated that petitioner's psychological test results indicate that petitioner had a "degree of psychological disturbance that is concerning and does not lend itself to proper parenting," despite the evaluation recommending that petitioner exercise parenting time with his one and three year old daughters at least three days a week.
The sole purpose of the highly excessive bond was to punish petitioner and prevent petitioner from expressing his political and social views in a public forum.

GROUND FOUR:
JAMES HUMPHREY, HEIDI HUMPHREY, EDWARD CONNOR, ANGELA LOECHEL, SHERIFF MICHAEL KREINGHOP, PROSECUTOR F. AARON NEGANGARD, AND SALLY BLANKENSHIP CONSPIRED TO DEPRIVE THE PETITIOF RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
(a) Supporting facts (Do not argue or cite law.Just state the specific facts that support your claim.):
THE FOREGOING INDIVIDUALS CONSPIRED TO INJURE, OPPRESS, THREATEN, OR INTIMIDATE THE PETTITIONER TO DENY PETITIONER HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CRITICIZE HIS GOVERNMENT. THE ACTIONS OF THE PETITIONER ARE SO CLEARLY PROTECTED BY LAW A HIGH SCHOOL AMERICAN HISTORY STUDENT WOULD UNDERSTAND THE PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AS SET FORTH HEREIN. THE PETITIONER HAS NOT THREATENED HARM TO ANY ONE IN ANY INTERNET POSTING OR REQUESTED ANYONE TO HARM ANYONE. THE FOREGOING INDIVIDUALS WANT THE PETITIONERS INTERNET POSTINGS REMOVED BECAUSE THE POSTINGS ARE NOT ONLY TRUTHFUL BUT SHINE A LIGHT ON A DYSFUNCTIONAL COURT SYSTEM AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATION THAT LACKS THE CHECKS AND BALANCES FOR A WELL ORDERED SOCIETY AS ENVISIONED BY THE FOUNDERS.


Therefore, petitioner asks that the Court grant the following relief:
THE DISMISSAL OF ALL CHARGES AGAINST THE PETITIONER, OR THE APPOINTMENT OF A
COMPETENT PUBLIC DEFENDER TO ASSIST THE PETITIONER, AND THE SETTING OF A REASONABLE BOND TO SECURE THE PETITIONER'S APPEARANCE AT TRIAL.
or any other relief to which petitioner may be entitled.

Signed by Robert G Kelly
4353 Montgomery Road
Norwood Ohio 45212
513-531-3636: 513-531-0135 Fax
Executed 8/9/11
Signed by Petitioner
Daniel P Brewington

SEVEN POINT JAIL ALTERNATIVE PLAN

Editorial: 7 Point Jail Alternative Plan
By: Douglas A.Garner, Attorney
Zerbe, Garner, Miller, and Blondell

August 11, 2011


Re: Alternatives to Jail Expansion

Previously, Alan Miller and I questioned the need to add 224 beds to the Dearborn County jail. The jail project is projected to cost between $12 and $14 million. When the jail reaches capacity, annual staffing and prisoner costs are projected to be $1.34 million. Alternatives to expanding the jail need to be tried first. The following seven point plan, if implemented, would greatly reduce or eliminate the need for a larger jail:

• Direct funding of Community Corrections.
• Release non-violent offenders on their own recognizance or on reasonable surety bonds, unless they have a previously demonstrated history of not appearing in court.
• Revise the bond schedule.
• Train law enforcement to issue citations in misdemeanor cases when possible.
• The Prosecutor’s Office should refrain from filing new charges on Friday and requesting arrest warrants on Friday afternoon.
• Build a separate work release center in conjunction with an expanded sheriff’s office, if needed.
• Apply for state reimbursement for public defender costs.


1. Direct funding of Community Corrections.

Currently Community Corrections, which includes the house arrest, work release and road crew programs, receives its operating funding from program fees and grants. Before an individual can be placed on house arrest, they must pay $150.00. As a result, many persons who could otherwise be on house arrest remain in the jail. If the county directly funded Community Corrections, judges could send persons directly to house arrest immediately following their first appearance in court regardless of their ability to pay. It costs $30 to $45 per day to house one prisoner in jail. House arrest costs approximately $10 per day. Direct funding of Community Corrections would save the county money and reduce the number of people in the jail.

2. Release non-violent offenders on their own recognizance or on reasonable surety bonds, unless they have a previously demonstrated history of not appearing in court.

The purpose of bond under Indiana law is to ensure that a person charged with a crime will appear in court. Indiana law also provides judges can consider the risk to the community when setting bonds. Prepayment of fines and court costs and general ease of court administration are not lawful considerations when setting bonds. Non-violent offenders who have not previously failed to appear in court should not be held in jail pretrial. If our judges released those persons on their own recognizance, lower surety bonds or placed them on house arrest pending trial, the jail overcrowding problem would be significantly lessened.

A major problem with the existing jail is the overcrowding of the holding area. An unreasonable number of people are being held in the holding cells, particularly on the weekends. There is no doubt this is a significant problem, however, it is caused more by policies of local law enforcement, judges, and the prosecutor, than it is by an actual shortage of space. The following three points, if adopted, would greatly reduce the overcrowding of the holding area and the jail population overall:

3. Revise the bond schedule.

Certain persons arrested are eligible to bond out before appearing in court pursuant to a bond schedule developed by the judges of Dearborn County. A more reasonable schedule allowing non-violent offenders, particularly those with local ties, to be released on their own recognizance or on minimal surety bonds would reduce the overcrowding of the holding cells on the weekends.

4. Train law enforcement to issue citations in misdemeanor cases when possible.

Indiana law allows for police officers to issue citations in misdemeanor cases. A citation requires the person to appear in court at a future date. Many jurisdictions have trained law enforcement to issue citations in non-violent misdemeanor cases rather than burden their jails and holding facilities with persons accused of minor offenses. Local law enforcement typically does not use this alternative. As a result, misdemeanor offenders overcrowd the holding area waiting to be bonded out or for the court to set a bond.

5. The Prosecutor’s Office should refrain from filing new charges on Friday and requesting arrest warrants on Friday afternoon.

It has been a long standing practice in this county for the Prosecutor’s Office to file charges on Friday resulting in arrest warrants on Friday afternoon. Those arrest warrants are often served Friday afternoon or Friday evening resulting in the accused persons being held in the jail through the weekend. This is a contributing factor to the overcrowding of the holding cells.

6. Build a separate work release center in conjunction with an expanded sheriff’s office, if needed.

The RQAW report (county funded jail study) expressed concerns about the mixing of the work release population with the general jail population. Work release allows people to be incarcerated in the evening and work during the day. This creates a security problem, as the work release prisoners can smuggle contraband into the facility. If new space is needed for the sheriff’s department, a work release facility could be built in conjunction with that new office space to allow the separation of work release prisoners from general population, further reducing the jail overcrowding. A work release center would require less security than the jail, and therefore be less expensive to build. This solution would be significantly less expensive than the current proposal.

7. Apply for state reimbursement for public defender costs.

Every county in Indiana is eligible for up to 40 percent reimbursement of its public defender costs. Currently Dearborn County does not receive any reimbursement from the state for those costs. In order to receive state reimbursement, counties must comply with certain requirements of the Indiana Public Defender Commission. These criteria would improve the quality of public defender representation. The RQAW study found the average jail stay in Dearborn County was 70-100 percent longer than the average stay for other jails studied by RQAW. Part of the reason for the lengthy jail stays is inadequate representation by some public defenders. In far too many cases inmates are brought to the courthouse for hearings after 30, 60 or even 90 days having never met their public defender. Better representation by the county public defenders would result in shorter jail stays and a reduced jail population.

There are systemic problems in the Dearborn County criminal justice system. Doubling the size of the jail is an expensive band aid. Without changes to the system, the proposed jail addition will fill up quickly. Our elected officials have a responsibility to make changes to the system before spending our money on an unneeded jail.

Very truly yours,

Douglas A. Garner

Agenda for August 16th Commissioners Meeting

AGENDA
DEARBORN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
August 16, 2011
9:00 a.m.
City of Lawrenceburg
Administration Building
230 Walnut Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana

EXECUTIVE SESSION – 8:30 AM / Pending Litigation & Personnel Matter

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. OLD BUSINESS
1. Private Real Property Rights Preservation Ordinance
2. Revised Jail Expansion Project
3. GIS Fee Schedule
4. Happy Hollow Road

IV. NEW BUSINESS
1. Dennis Kraus, Jr., Surveyor – New State Law regarding drainage
2. Grant Request – Indiana Criminal Justice, Impaired Driving
3. 2012 Compensation Recommendation to County Council

V. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT- Todd Listerman
Updates

VI. AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington
1. Claims/Minutes
2. Data Sharing MOU

VII. ATTORNEY - Andy Baudendistel

VIII. COUNTY COORDINATOR – Bill Ewbank

IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

X. LATE ARRIVAL INFORMATION

XI. PUBLIC COMMENT

XII. ADJOURN

MOTION FILED IN BREWINGTON CASE FOR CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUROR'S NAMES AND IDENTITIES

Filed August 9, 2011
STATE OF INDIANA
COUNTY OF DEARBORN
STATE OF INDIANA
v.
DANIEL BREWINGTON
IN THE DEARBORN SUPERIORCOURT NO.2
GENERAL TERM, 2011

CAUSE NO. 15D02-1103-FD-084

MOTION FOR CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUROR'S NAMES AND IDENTITIES
Comes now the State of Indiana by M. Joseph Kisor, Chief Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney for the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Indiana, and hereby moves the Court for an
order keeping the names and identities of the jurors confidential from all parties. There is
a strong reason to believe the jury needs protection from the Defendant for the following
reasons.
1. The Defendant has previously attempted to interfere with the judicial
process, including the continuous and long-term harassment of witnesses,
judges, and attorneys involved.
2. The Defendant has previously made threats against witnesses, judges, and
attorneys involved in the current court proceedings.
3. Jurors' safety would be jeopardized by revealing their names and identities
to the parties based on the Defendant's past behavior.
4. The names and identities of the jurors must be kept confidential to prevent
potential intimidation of the jurors.
5. The names and identities of the jurors must be kept confidential to prevent
them from being contacted or harassed about the court proceedings.

Memorandum in support thereof, the State of Indiana attaches Major v. State,
873 N.E. 2d 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
WHEREFORE, the State respectfully requests the names and identities of the
jurors be kept confidential from all parties because there is a strong reason to believe the
jury needs protection.

M. Joseph Kisor
Prosecuting Attorney
ISB# 11449-98
Seventh Judicial Circuit
215 W. High Street
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served by personal delivery
or U.S. Mail, upon Bryan E. Barrett, Attorney for Defendant and Special Judge,
Honorable Brian D. Hill on the date filed.

BLOGGER"S CASE RAISES MANY QUESTIONS

Blogger's Case Raises Many Questions

Written by Christine Brauer Mueller and previously published in the Register July 28.

Dan Brewington faced off against the Dearborn County court systems in a divorce/custody proceeding in 2009 and criticized the justice system on his blog - danbrewington.blogspot.com.


According to Erika SchmidtRussell’s article in the Thursday, July 14, Register, he is currently being held at the Dearborn County Jail, charged with intimidation, releasing grand jury information, perjury, and obstruction of justice. He has been in jail for over four months, since March 11 with delays from having one public defender and two judges withdraw.


Visit http://www.dearborncounty.blogspot.com/ for background information on this case. Both the Register and Dearborn County Public Forum sources raise even more questions about our county’s justice system and possible causes for jail overcrowding.


If I were “journalist for a day,” these are questions I would ask about the Dan Brewington case.
Why has Dan Brewington’s own pro bono attorney from Cincinnati, Robert Kelly, been denied attorney-client privileged access to him in the county jail?


Why did Judge Sally Blankenship set Brewington’s bond higher than most other defendants, including accused child molesters, when he has no prior criminal record? (Blankenship withdrew from the case six days later)


How does John Watson, the first court appointed public defender, explain 3 separate emergencies preventing meeting with his client or attending the original pretrial hearing? Why did it take attorney Watson two months to realize he had cases before Judge Humphrey, and then recuse himself?


Did Watson presume that Brewington, like most defendants, would take the prosecutor’s plea deal?


The court appointed Brewington’s second public defender, Bryan E Barrett, on June 20, more than three months after he was put in jail. They met for the first time July 18, the morning of his pretrial hearing.

Brewington’s jury trial is set for August 16. How can a defendant form a defense if he doesn’t have a reasonable amount of time to meet with his lawyer? The investigative report by Mike Kreinhop was filed in 2009. Why did Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard wait until 2011 to convene the grand jury, five days after Brewington’s disciplinary grievance against Negangard was dismissed? If the allegations were so serious, how does the prosecutor explain his nearly two-year tardiness after the alleged threats?


Does the medical doctor used by the County Jail have experience in dealing with ADHD? Did he consult with Brewington’s personal physician about his treatment plan?


How do the sheriff and jail commander defend withholding and then altering Mr. Brewington’s prescribed medication after receiving written instructions from Brewington’s medical doctor’s justifying the medication and dosage? Was there a plan to deny Brewington’s ADHD medication in order to hamper his ability to contribute to his own defense?


Should citizens fear retribution from public officials when they criticize them in a public forum? What is the difference between criticism and legally defined intimidation? Do First Amendment Rights to Free Speech protect Brewington’s writings?


The charges against Brewington seem overly broad. Are there specific details of the events or writing that constitute the basis for each charge?


If so, when did they occur and why were they not detailed in the charges? Was the grand jury given access to all of Brewington’s writings or selective statements taken out of context?


Is Brewington’s treatment by our justice system typical? If so, how many of these situations contribute to our need for a $12 million taxpayer-funded jail expansion?

2 August 2011 Dearborn Couonty Commissioner Meeting Notes

2 August 2011 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes
These notes were graciously provided by Helen Kremer, Logan Township.

Present: Jeff Hughes, President, Tom Orschell, and Shane McHenry
Also present: Gayle Pennington, Auditor, Bill Ewbank, County Coordinator, and Andy Baudendistel, Attorney.

Jeff Hughes began the meeting at 6 p.m. with a Call to Order, and the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Public Hearing regarding Happy Hollow Road was placed on hold until later in the meeting due to a circumstance resulting in all sides not being present.

OLD BUSINESS:

Private Real Property Rights Preservation Ordinance – Jeff Hughes said they are making headway, and he discussed with the Planning Commission a survey to be sent to property owners of 100 acres or over, and then later send a survey to property owners with about 99 acres, 50 acres, 20 acres--to determine and evaluate what people think, if they like the idea. He believes they have a right to do it. We’ve had no applications here lately, is it because of the economy or are we doing something hard so that they can’t do anything? Jeff Hughes continued they are working on a form, and until they get feedback, it should be tabled for now.

Revised Jail Expansion Project. Tom Orschell said they need to talk to some of the Council people, and the item should be tabled.

GIS Fee Schedule – changes tabled at this time.

NEW BUSINESS:

Lola Materna of Patient Assistant.com stated the Patient Assistant cards are free discount prescription cards to help the uninsured, or underinsured of all ages, and all incomes with prescription costs. These cards are honored at all pharmacies, and there is no membership fee. Patient Assistant is a member of the Indiana County Commissioners organization. Ms. Materna requested the Commissioners to make these cards available to Dearborn County residents.

Jeff Hughes asked if these cards affect the cards that people already have, and how this affected the Maaco cards.

Ms. Materna said that Patient Assistant cards will not affect any prescription cards people have, but can be used in addition, side-by-side. This organization is a 501C3, not-for-profit organization that can give 50% discount on generics.

Hughes said if it doesn’t affect our cards, he motioned to make the Patient Assistant.com cards available. All ayes.

Fingerprinting Fees – Sheriff Mike Kreinhop asked the Commissioners to allow a $10.00 fingerprinting fee for providing people with fingerprinting cards. They are experiencing a steady flow of people, some requesting four cards at a time. Many employers, and even landowners renting apartments are requesting people have a fingerprint card. The State of Indiana charges $10.00 for this service. Sheriff Kreinhop also requested new equipment for this service--what they are using is “on its last legs”, and he wrote the Commissioners a letter regarding this proposal. The cost will be $600-$800 to replace, and also they need ink pads, which will be ongoing.

Orschell proposed they go forward with this request, and the $10 fees can go toward this new technology, and they can use those dollars to support this activity. All ayes.

OKI Resolution Regarding Sewer Service for Unincorporated Areas. Frank Kramer, attorney representing the Dearborn County Regional Sewer District (DCRSD), said DCRSD is a registered sewer district, overseeing water quality in Dearborn County. The Clean Water Act about 50 years ago resulted in OKI, in 1970, allocating parts of Dearborn County to South Dearborn Regional Sewer District (SDRSD). At the request of Mr. Thompson, the former Commissioner, OKI did an update, and had an advisory committee make recommendations. The recommendations resulted in a large portion of Dearborn County being assigned to SDRSD, and some to St. Leon. This is a conflict.
The OKI resolution is now before IDEM for their decision.

Mr. Renihan the President of the DCRSD, said he spoke with Mr. Orschell and discussed how this plan with OKI came about—a series of meetings, with a twenty member Advisory Committee, of which the Commissioners had a representative. Some of the people in Greendale and St. Leon were very vocal. The last meeting was not a fair vote, in his opinion, they were told no one was leaving—they were held hostage, under duress, until a vote was made.

The DCRSD has responded in writing to ask the Commissioners to make their position very clearly stated that they affirm the 2006 configurations that unincorporated areas in Dearborn County are to be under the jurisdiction of DCRSD.

Orschell said he believes representation in the county should only be with DCRSD.

Mr. Kramer said DCRSD has sewer lines on Stewart St., and under construction on Serenity Ridge, also sewer service for the West Harrison TIF district was awarded to the Harrison treatment plant by DCRSD.

Hughes said he wants to have citizens represented.

Travis Miller of OKI said he did not have the opportunity of sharing his opinions with the DCRSD. The Water Quality Plan has been going on for two years, with the former Commissioner working with IDEM, under AAR funding for OKI to update quality in Indiana and update quality in Ohio, a wide area of responsibility for OKI is underway with the Ohio EPA and IDEM. Miller said he was not involved from the beginning, but in the last 1-1/2 years there were twenty-four advisory committee members including the County Council, Dearborn County Planning Commission, all providers, the critical stake holders—which was a good cross-section. Also the Dearborn County website was made available throughout the process. The advisory committee was informed, we’ve done a fair job. This was not voted on final. We will have to come back to resolution. The Water Quality final form is with IDEM and OKI , the plans and study and contract has been met. Along with that the Assistant Commissioner of IDEM is tracking our work. Frank Kramer’s legal concerns to the Dearborn County district have also been raised by Greendale. SDRSD is a legal entity for a portion of the county, there are concerns for St. Leon. OKI’s legal counsel, and IDEM understands there are legal conflicts . OKI advanced the plan with a cover letter asking IDEM for declaration on these issues. If clarification is certifiable, the OKI board will have the committee attend before a declaration is made. In terms of designated areas—there are unincorporated areas—the lines were drawn reasonable, South Dearborn and Dillsboro, Harrison and West Harrison and Moores Hill—lines as stated. St. Leon area does include unincorporated areas serviced by St. Leon.

Hughes asked what is the recourse?

Miller said he would share the details with the Commissioners, and suggested they table the request until they hear from IDEM, because it will just be part of the package in front of IDEM.

Hughes asked Kramer if he looked at the documents.

Kramer said there was a court order for SDRSD in 1972 that defined the boundaries to Aurora, Lawrenceburg and Greendale. SDRSD goes to Guilford—if they don’t do anything about it, then we can, we should be under your designated planning agency.

Hughes said he agreed with Tom, somebody should negotiate for people, have someone on their side—DCRSD.

Orschell said go the 2006, for DCRSD. St. Leon put a lot of lines in unincorporated areas under their rule, they would have to negotiate with DCRSD.

Steve Renihan said in 1977, there were unincorporated areas involved with the SDRSD area, huge pollution problems. They want to go to good areas for sewer tap-ins and benefit, and leave the problem areas for us to fix.

Hughes said we shouldn’t be talking about others, no one in the sewer business should make money.

Renihan said it causes conflict. IDEM needs to know the Commissioners position—how you feel—we are reasonable people.

Hughes said he liked the resolution, the people are to be served, and we should have something we can have control of.

McHenry said this is quite a rift, disappointing, these are serious issues. What happens if we pass this regarding the map.

Kramer said it will be another factor to think about, the feeling of the Commissioners. This resolution makes your feelings felt—this has weight and merit.

Miller said although our Board at the OKI staff will not be considering this for two months, you might hold-off until we respond. We want to promote what is best and better. I will come back out for a future meeting.

McHenry stated OKI stayed neutral. The resolution is of the opinion that the people in unincorporated areas have voices.

Hughes said this was never about OKI against the county, Shane makes it clear.

Miller said understood. You are part of a representative group—planning capacity, corporated or unincorporated, that won’t go away.

Jeff Stenger (Board member of DCRSD). The whole Board, attorney and chairman wants you to know how we feel. I haven’t read the complete resolution but some of these hot spots under SDRSD, can limit us as a Board.

Orschell motioned to pass the resolution by Mr. Kramer for DCRSD.
McHenry asked if attorney Baudendistel had any issues .

Baudendistel said he had no opinion re OKI and Mr. Kramer. IDEM is to see if this is possible.

Miller said IDEM and legal issues.

Baudendistel stated he just received this resolution in the afternoon and did not have time to research case law.

McHenry seconded the motion. All ayes. Resolution passed #009. Orschell had Kramer read the resolution in the record.

PUBLIC HEARING: Motion to Open – HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD:

Jeff Stenger, surveyor, representing the Engles, said he didn’t have all the information formed, but the Engles do have road frontage. Stenger is in the process of filing the frontage, which is 2.49 feet. So, it is yes on the ROW.

Orschell asked what is limited in foot frontage on the road.

Stenger replied it touches the road that is all we need to know. Engles and Lykens have to resolve this issue, and are not able to do so. It has been tabled, and everything fell apart. I apologize for not having finished all problems and issues with this project.

Baudendistel read four objectives, and if one or more are met, the Commissioners can approve. Of the four read, the second one might/or might not apply which refers to a hardship.

John Engle owns the family farm, which has been in the family for 60 years, he owned all sections. Over the years, due to drop-offs into the creek, the culvert moved. He showed a 1962 map where the road is in the disputed area. He has talked to the county, will work with them, and he is not going to bad-mouth anyone. His grandfather had the property surveyed in 1949, and they have used that road for five generations.

Ray Engle spoke—he is the owner now of 30 acres. The terrain is very hilly, and it will be very costly to put in a road.

Rob Seig(?) representing Dave Lykins, Jr. apologized for being late. He said that the four items read by Attorney Baudendistel did not affect the Engles, in his opinion. Also, if Jeff Stenger’s survey is correct, 2.49 feet on the ROW doesn’t touch the road. Also, their surveys disagree. Explaining some of the differences, he said that you have to look at several things sequentially to determine the lines, including deeds and monuments. There are junior and senior rights. The line didn’t touch the road by two different surveys.

Stenger said with all do respect, he did not think the Commissioners were in a position to make a decision because they were not surveyors. Mr. Engle could lose access to property, his only access, he needs an easement of necessity.

Orschell thought this should be a judge’s decision—two conflicting surveys. He said the Planning and Zoning Committee made no recommendation for vacation based on reasonable discrepancies of ROW, which is beyond our decision—it should go to the next level.

Baudendistel said Tom was correct, there are competing surveys, but if the survey found the ROW, a decision might have to be made.

Hughes said we have a lot of information , maybe it is not a Commissioner’s decision.
McHenry agreed, he didn’t feel right about making a decision.

Baudendistel said with reference to Legislative Body Magazine Tablet Section 280, the issue of whether it touches the ROW may need to be resolved. He will investigate, talk to other attorneys to see if the Commissioners have to make a decision.

Orschell motioned to table until the next meeting. All ayes.


HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT: Todd Listerman, Highway Engineer

Todd Listerman had a change order #2 for the George St. Bridge of $3,790.40. The only cost to the County was $758.08 because the portals disintegrated in the front and they had to replace them. Approved—all ayes.

Listerman needed signatures for INDOT for ROW on North Dearborn Rd. so projects can proceed. Certification signed—approved—all ayes.

County originally received $1 million for Collier Ridge, there is now a supplement to replace the $1 million for $2 million. Approved and signed—all ayes.

AUDITOR: Gayle Pennington

Gayle Pennington received a notice from the State Election Commission stating the General Assembly requires, under 1601, Sec. 13, that County Commissioners review precincts and file notification if you see errors. She stated the Commissioners have been looking at the census, and they have an August 4th deadline to sign--in order to comply. Discrepancies do not have to be sent in until January 12, 2012—to complete work with redistricting. Approved and signed by Commissioners.

There was a request from a person in the Highway Department regarding a situation of a personnel position which was available and filled without public notice for seven calendar days. The position has been posted and proper procedures will be followed by recommendation of the Personnel Advisory Committee. Approved—all ayes.

Pennington said the Beacon website being visited more everyday—60 visits per day, over 1,000 in July.

Pennington requested Commissioners look at claims and accept. The payroll and utilities docket page was not available for signature because of an oversight, they can sign downstairs. Reviewed, approved, and signed claims accepted by Commissioners. All ayes.

ATTORNEY: Andy Baudendistel

Resolutions for Municipalities - for West Harrison—resolution 10.
Approved--all ayes.

Tort Claims from Insurance company notice per Ewbank.

We received notice from the FCC regarding consultants we have used, which they do not seem to like. Several municipalities have been named besides Dearborn County--Aurora, Lawrenceburg, all regarding cell phone towers and $8,500 being put into escrow. I’m going to check with Mr. McCormick of Planning and Zoning regarding this matter.

COUNTY COORDINATOR: Bill Ewbank

OKI is asking for the Commissioners to sign an agreement to nominate them to secure a grant from HUD, making approximately $70 million available for the OKI area, and they are asking our area to support their efforts. OKI is the lead applicant. The program will provide transportation choices, equitable affordable housing, enhance economic competitiveness, support recycling, safeguard rural landscapes, encourage smart energy uses, and enhance unique walkable neighborhoods.

Travis Miller said this will help to update the regional plan, and the strategic land use plan.

Jeff Hughes said he was certainly in favor of it.
Approved—all ayes.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Tom Orschell

Orschell said he received a call for a Canine Seminar which is held once a year. The officer wants to use a demolished building for the seminar from Sept. 12-16th for demonstrations.

After discussions with Bill Ewbank, it was decided that the Building inspector should find out why the building is out-of-service, and if it is appropriate to use the building for this seminar.

Orschell also stated he received a call from a woman in Bright about seven pine trees cut down by her home. They had planted the trees, not realizing initially that they were on county property. Later on they realized they were on county property, but no one spoke to them when the county came and cut down the trees. It was determined the authorization came from the Tech Review Committee, The next time, Tom Orschell wants the Tech Review or Planning Commission to contact the people affected by these decisions ahead of time. Tom said it is the neighborly thing to do.

Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

Helen Kremer
Logan Township

AGENDA 2 August 2011 Commissioners Meeting

AGENDA
DEARBORN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
August 2, 2011
6:00 p.m., Commissioners Room
County Administration Building
215 B West High Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana


I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. PUBLIC HEARING – HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD

IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Private Real Property Rights Preservation Ordinance
2. Revised Jail Expansion Project
3. GIS Fee Schedule

V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Lola Materna – PatientAssistant.com information
2. Sheriff Mike Kreinhop – Fingerprinting Fees
3. OKI Resolution Regarding Sewer Service for Unincorporated Areas

VI. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT- Todd Listerman
Updates

VII. AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington
1. Claims/Minutes
2. Notice Of Errors With Precinct Boundaries

VIII. ATTORNEY - Andy Baudendistel

IX. COUNTY COORDINATOR – Bill Ewbank
1. OKI Consortium Commitment
2011 Regional Sustainable Communities Grant Program Opportunity

X. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

XI. LATE ARRIVAL INFORMATION

XII. PUBLIC COMMENT

XIII. ADJOURN

LET’S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON DAN BREWINGTON

LET’S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON DAN BREWINGTON

An Inside View of the Dearborn County Justice System

Timeline -Criminal case – Daniel P. Brewington – Dearborn County, Indiana

1. Norwood, Ohio Police served a warrant for Daniel P. Brewington on Monday, March 7, 2011, at 2:30PM and took him to the Hamilton County, Ohio, Justice Center. He stayed there until Wednesday at 2:00PM when he was bailed out for $1000.

2. On Thursday, March 10, 2011, Ohio attorney Robert G. Kelly spoke to Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard and told him that Dan would need a public defender and that Mr. Kelly would like to represent Dan pro hac vice, since he is not licensed in Indiana. Mr. Kelly said that he would be doing this pro bono.

3. On Friday, March 11, 2011, Mr. Kelly and Sue Brewington delivered Dan to the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center (DCLEC) at 6:00AM.

4. Dan’s arraignment hearing was at 11:10AM before Judge Sally Blankenship and he did not have an attorney. The deputy prosecutor, Joseph Kisor, read the charges, asked for a restraining order to keep Dan away from the people that he is accused of intimidating and an order to keep Dan and his agents off the internet, as a condition of bail. The judge said that she will set bond by the end of the day.
Charges - 3 counts of intimidation: Intimidating Judge James D. Humphrey, Dr. Edward Connor, Heidi Humphrey, releasing grand jury information, perjury, and obstruction of justice. 3 Class D felonies, and 3 misdemeanors, 2A’s and 1 B. Dan has no criminal record and never did anything but tell his story on the internet. All his “adventures” can be found on danhelpskids.com and danbrewington.blogspot.com

5. The charges are a blatant attempt at nullifying Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

6. Bond is set at $500,000 surety and $100,000 cash. Dan would need $150,000 to get out of jail. It is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money to keep a person with absolutely no history of violence from pre- school on, in jail. He has only lived in two communities, Norwood, Ohio and Milan, Indiana, Ripley County. He has no criminal record in either place. He is no flight risk. He surrendered himself to jail.

7. Sheriff Kreinhop denied Mr. Kelly the ability to see Dan because Mr. Kelly was not licensed in Indiana. Mr. Kelly had visited other clients in this jail. When Dan asked Captain Dave Hall and Sheriff Mike Kreinhop for the written rule he was told it was just our policy.

8. On Thursday, March 17, 2011, 6 days after setting the bond for Dan, Judge Sally Blankenship wrote to Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard to disqualify herself and ask him to appoint another judge, although she obviously felt qualified to set the extremely high bond. Could that possibly be motivated by her relationship with the “victims?”

9. Prosecutor Negangard should disqualify himself.

a. Dan’s writings about Judge Humphrey and Dr. Connor are intertwined with writings about Negangard and the Dearborn County Prosecutor’s office.

b. Dr. Connor has served as an expert witness for the Dearborn County Courts and Prosecutor’s office.

c. Judge Blankenship declared that “no judicial officer in Dearborn County is able to hear this matter to avoid the appearance of bias or prejudice.” The same should apply to the Dearborn County Prosecutor’s office.

d. Negangard’s testimony is needed to determine the nature of the “attacks” and how it negatively impacted Negangard’s ability to prosecute suspected criminals.

e. Dan filed 2 complaints against Negangard with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.

f. Negangard named Dan as a target of a grand jury investigation 5 days after the complaints against him were dismissed.

g. In an email, dated July 12, 2010 sent from his Blackberry, Negangard accused Dan of “attacking” his office in an attempt by Dan to get Prosecutor Negangard “not to do his job of prosecuting those who violate the law.” This was forwarded to 12 county officials and to Dan.

h. Negangard has administrative control over SCU, therefore Negangard is the lead investigator and may be required to testify; especially since Negangard received the initial complaint and initiated the investigation.

i. Negangard was involved with the investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel after Dan filed a complaint against former SCU detective Mike Kreinhop for potential Hatch Act violations.

j. The Prosecutor’s office would be less likely to drop charges if it adversely impacted the reputations of Dr. Connor or Judge James D. Humphrey.

k. State v. Tippecanoe County Ind 432 NE 2d1377 4/2/82. If Negangard is disqualified then the entire staff is disqualified because Negangard has administrative control over the entire staff of Deputy Prosecutors.

10. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard appointed Judge John Westhafer of Decatur County.

a. After two months, he asked to be disqualified because he is a 25 year friend of Judge Humphrey. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard appointed a 3rd judge.

11. Dan is denied the medication that he has been taking for 9 years for ADHD. He had letters from his doctor and therapist from The Affinity Center in Cincinnati, Ohio.

a. First the jail officials would not let him have it.

b. Next Captain Dave Hall said he could have it.

c. Then Dr. Nadir Al-Shami, who has his office listed in Fairdale, KY and had never seen Dan before, declared that his dose was too high and changed the dosage and times that it was to be administered. Dan chose not to take the medication that way but as time for court got closer he tried a compromise. The doctor said he could have 30 mgs twice a day, morning and night. Dan asked if he could have 20 mg 3 times a day but not at night. They said no. They finally agreed on 30 mg in the morning and 30mg around 4:00PM. This is a ridiculous way to treat a person who had been under the care of the same therapy center specializing in ADHD for 9 years. Regulation of the proper dosage is critical to his care and now they are just guessing.

d. ADHD is recognized by the American Disabilities Act.

12. An attorney from Sunman, John Watson, was appointed the public defender.

a. First he had a death in his family and could not see Dan.

b. Second he totaled his car and could not see Dan.

c. Third he had to leave the courthouse on the day of a scheduled pre-trial conference because his son had been rushed from school to the hospital.

d. He filed a bond reduction application, on May 13, 2011, two months and two days after Dan arrived in jail. The document had 2 serious flaws.
(1) The name of the client was incorrect, totally.
(2) He added a Schedule C Felony, battery with a deadly weapon.

e. He filed a Motion to Withdraw because he had active cases in front of Judge Humphrey.

f. He had originally indicated that he would be willing to sponsor Mr. Kelly pro hac vice. Mr. Kelly wrote the public defender a letter indicating what he thought should be done by now. The public defender responded and then filed his motion to withdraw.

g. The public defender gave Sue Brewington the discoveries that he got from the prosecutor. He gave Dan a copy of Detective Michael Kreinhop’s report on his investigation. Kreinhop wrote the report on October 28, 2009. The discoveries consisted of copies of all of Dan’s internet postings on his blog and websites. He also gave Dan a list of witnesses.

(1). Sheriff Michael Kreinhop
(2). Dr. Ed Connor
(3) Judge James Humphrey
(4) Heidi Humphrey
(5) Attorney Angela Loechell
(6) Melissa Brewington

13. Judge James D. Humphrey remained as the Judge of record from August 24, 2009 until June 9, 2010 on Dan’s divorce case, ruling on motions and setting hearings even though he was intimidated and felt his family was intimidated by Dan’s writings. Dan never had any contact what so ever with the Judge or his family.

14. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard appointed Judge Brian D. Hill from Rush County, as the 3rd judge in this case. Judge Hill set a hearing for June 17, 2011 to rule on the public defender’s Motion to Withdraw. Judge Hill set 2 new dates for hearings.

a. July 18, 2011, a bond reduction hearing and the final pre-trial hearing.

b. August 16, 2011 beginning of a jury trial

c. He said that he would appoint another public defender soon.

15. The new public defender was appointed June 20, 2011. His name is Bryan E. Barrett and he is the public defender for Rush County. Today, July 18, 2011, is the first time Dan met with him. Dan felt their first meeting was productive. Dan would not have known that a public defender had been appointed if Sue and Matt Brewington had not checked the computer in the clerk’s office.

16. On June 28, 2011 Prosecutor Negangard filed a Motion to Continue the Bond Reduction Hearing scheduled for July 18, 2011 because Detective/County Commissioner Shane McHenry would not be available to testify on that date. Until this time there had been no mention of Shane McHenry as a witness. McHenry was scheduled to testify at the trial of Lonnie Ray Johnson on July 18, 2011.

a. There is an entry in the computer in the clerk’s office that is file stamped July 5, 2011 that says the court accepted a plea deal from Lonnie Ray Johnson and a sentencing hearing was set for August 2, 2011. A person might wonder why the prosecutor did not tell Judge Brian D. Hill that Shane McHenry would be available on July 18, 2011 and the bond hearing could go forward as scheduled.

b. Instead the judge came down from Rush County just for the pre-trial hearing and will have to return for the Bond Reduction Hearing and then for the Trial on August 16, 2011. Suggested dates for the bond hearing were August 1,3,5. I will let people know when I find out.

17. As of July 14, 2011, according to the computer in the clerk’s office, Judge Brian D. Hill had not ruled on Prosecutor Negangard’s Motion. He said in today’s hearing that he telephonically communicated that he would be continuing the bond reduction hearing.

18. On June 29, 2011 Prosecutor Negangard filed additional Supplemental Discovery Answers indicating that the Transcript of the Grand Jury proceedings has been emailed to public defender #2 and public defender #1 will send copies of the State’s preliminary Discovery Answer to the new public defender.

19. Dan has had no opportunity to subpoena or depose witnesses for his bond hearing or his trial.

20. Dan has been in jail on excessive bail for 4 months and has not seen an attorney since May 24, 2011 until July 18, 2011. He still cannot see Mr. Kelly with attorney client privilege.

21. Mr. Kelly is working on a suit to be filed in Federal Court.

22. Dan does not have any idea of the evidence against him except for 3 binders full of his own blog and website postings and Kreinhop’s report.

23. Dan continues to post on his blog, danbrewington.blogspot.com

24. Because of the proposed jail expansion we learned some interesting facts about Dearborn County courts and how they use the jail. The information below was found in the letter written by attorneys Miller and Garner and from RQAW’s study.

a. The majority of time the Dearborn County judges set bond in two parts, requiring both a cash bond and a surety bond. This has resulted in higher bonds for many people arrested and leaves these people unable to post bond so they sit in jail pending the resolution of their case.

b. Most of these people do not pose a danger to the community nor pose a high risk of failing to appear on the scheduled court dates and therefore should not be held in jail while their case is pending.

c. RQAW also compared counties of similar size and the number of beds that they had in jail. Dearborn County would be way out of line with the jail expansion project.

d. RQAW also found that the average length of stay at the Dearborn County Jail is 70-100% longer than average stays at other jails studied by RQAW.

e. The RQAW study said an expanded jail would require $1.34 million per year in operating expenses when it reaches 100% occupancy.

25. Tuesday, July 19, 2011. I checked the clerk’s office and an appearance had been filed Monday, July 18, 2011 by Bryan E. Barrett.

26. A Bond Reduction hearing has been scheduled for August 3, 2011.


Submitted by Sue Brewington - July 19, 2011

19 July 2011 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes

19 July 2011 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes

Present: Jeff Hughes, President, Tom Orschell, and Shane McHenry
Also present: Gayle Pennington, Auditor, Bill Ewbank, County Coordinator, and Andy Baudendistel, Attorney.

Hughes began with a moment of silence for the Hartman family.

OLD BUSINESS:

Private real property rights preservation ordinance- Hughes wants to continue to table this. Tabled

Revised jail expansion project- tabled

North Dearborn Road Re-alignment east of Dover- commissioners said the property issues are solved.

Barnes & Thornburg Lobbyist proposal- Matt Morgan- attorney (Bob Grant spoke last meeting but was out of town) Hughes asked him to clarify what state lobbying the would provide as well. Morgan said that in previous days when earmarks were in they did it differently. Now that earmarks are out at the fed level, they do the federal state and executive branch to pursue grants. The state executive branch is still the arbiter of those grant funds. So the JAG and Byrne grants are administered by the state for the federal funds in those grants. [NOTE: These Justice Assistance Grants and the Byrne Grants have been granted to our Prosecutor’s Office for the SCU (Special Crimes unit)]They also do transportation funding lobbying for the county. They will focus on meeting with dept heads as needed for background on our needs, such as whether we have a shelf ready study for the road project done.
The terms of the agreement gives a 30–day termination clause. Commissioners felt that this was worthwhile to have someone on our side to help us get that money. Commissioners approved and signed the contract on a month to month basis for $5,000/month.

NEW BUSINESS:

Catch-a-ride discussion on fuel options- Shane McHenry said that he’d been approached by Mike Walterman of the Board of Directors of Catch a ride. They purchase fuel form Madison at their city garage and then they reimburse them. They used 250 gal/mo and pay pump price at Speedway of America. The Chief Deputy and Sheriff- Lusby and Kreinhop- were Ok with this idea. They also partner with Jennings county as well. They use New Horizons pump in Batesville. Commissioners seemed OK with the use of our county gas pumps and they will invoice the county for the additional costs with increased loads of gas being delivered. Andy Baudendistel will have to draw up an interlocal agreement per Gayle Pennington. Tabled until they can get some questions answered and the details worked out. They are trying to streamline costs to be able to afford more services. The bulk pricing may improve if this amount pushes us to a higher tier.

Lola Materna- PatientAssistant.com information- will come to August 2 meeting per Ewbank.

Margaret Minzner- GIS- 911 dispatching grant information and fee schedule- Charlie Ashley present also. There are a couple issues that are not making it work as well as it should there. There file needs centerline range helps if there is new construction that has a new address now. One vendor has a solution to interpolate between two address range- for $10,000 instead of $100,000. Hughes asked if it was just as effective and Margaret said yes. She passed out the proposal for this. This vendor also works with the neighboring counties so it gives us a regional map for dispatch as well. There is some money in GIS for this but she wants to get approval to meet with the Dearborn Community Foundation to seek a grant for this. Gayle Pennington said it was good to solve Ashley’s 911 problems and with the grant proposal and the price it would eliminate the need to go to Council for next year’s budget. It may remove some of the maintenance fee on the Emergitech contract that 911 currently pays. Hughes asked the Barnes and Thornburg rep- Matt Morgan- if they could help with this with the Byrnes and JAG grants. He had already written it down to look at. Commissioners approved going for the grant with the Dearborn County Foundation.

Margaret Minzner – gave out the latest stats for Beacon using the GIS services even during evening hours. The draft fee schedule for GIS was passed out to the commissioners. These fees would help to cover updates and maintenance. Online subscription fee would be there for enhanced data, imagery, and certain layers. The basics are open to public for free. The fees are nominal. There are fees to buy some of the data sets, map printing, and custom services, as well as shipping and handling. Gayle Pennington added that the team had worked hard on this and they tried to stay in line with other counties. They wanted to be affordable for the small appraisal and realtor businesses who weren’t part of a big conglomerate. As the GIS system grows and we are putting more into it, she doesn’t think the taxpayer needs to foot that bill for people wanting these services out of the county. There is a convenience to get data online. Plotters, software, etc will need to be paid for. She’s asking for Andy Baudendistel to draw up an ordinance to set up the GIS perpetuation fund. Commissioners approved Baudendistel‘s work and Tabled this until that is prepared for the next meeting.

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT: Todd Listerman, Highway Engineer- not present- on vacation. Bill Ewbank presented the change order to the restoration to the George Street Bridge for $1800 for repairs to the pedestrian path railings caused by a snow plow hit. It is 80% reimbursable- Our cost is about $140. Approved.

AUDITOR: Gayle Pennington- minutes and claims approved. McHenry talked about the interview room $11,639 claim and said that the sheriff was confident it was all working. So they approved the claim.

ATTORNEY: Andy Baudendistel- approached by Sheriff’s dept and Dillsboro for sheriff to hold all evidence for them. McHenry wanted to be sure Dillsboro would pay for this. Their attorney- John Watson- will draw up the agreement so that the county will not incur legal expenses setting it up. There will be an interlocal agreement needed for this also per Pennington. McHenry said that we will be doing their evidence collection for them. Dillsboro will pay for those costs. Hughes thought this consolidation would be a good idea. McHenry said when you start talking about individual power things start going south real quick- look at dispatch, EMS, etc. Orschell said that one outside consultant is studying that already.

COUNTY COORDINATOR: Bill Ewbank- OKI Contract annual – the same as prior years essentially for $16,515. It is about $100 less than last year. Approved.

Update report for CAC (Child Advocacy Center) in Dillsboro was just dumped on him. Report, final inspection, certificate of accessability, and compliance with civil rights laws. Approved to sign.

Last Wed there was a power surge and it generated the fire alarm. Some damages to electronics damage for less than $100. May ask Lawrenceburg to pay as it is less than
If there is some storm damage to 33 severe weather alert sirens for $20,000 each. He wants to increase our insurance coverage for this for about $40. Approved the $40.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS- McHenry asked about Willoughby Rd cul de sac. There are some drainage issues out there. He called them back about that after talking to Highway.

LATE ARRIVAL INFORMATION- none

PUBLIC COMMENT- none

Meeting adjourned at 10:00 AM

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township

Agenda for July 19th Commissioners Meeting

AGENDA
DEARBORN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
July 19, 2011
9:00 a.m.
City of Lawrenceburg
Administration Building
230 Walnut Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana


I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. OLD BUSINESS
1. Private Real Property Rights Preservation Ordinance
2. Revised Jail Expansion Project
3. North Dearborn Road Re-alignment East of Dover
4. Barnes & Thornberg – Lobbyist proposal

IV. NEW BUSINESS
1. Catch a Ride - Discussion on fuel options
2. Lola Materna – PatientAssistant.com information
3. Margaret Minzner – GIS
a. 911 Dispatching Grant information
b. Fee Schedule

V. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT- Todd Listerman
Updates

VI. AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington
1. Claims/Minutes

VII. ATTORNEY - Andy Baudendistel

VIII. COUNTY COORDINATOR – Bill Ewbank
1. OKI Contract

IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

X. LATE ARRIVAL INFORMATION

XI. PUBLIC COMMENT

XII. ADJOURN

BRIGHT FUTURES: RECYCLING

Bright Futures: Recycling
In the past months, Dearborn County Park Board ordered Solid Waste Management to remove the recycling trailers from Bright Meadows Park. Some had abused the facility, so the Park Board was acting in the best interests of residents, but this has been a real inconvenience to many trying to improve the quality of life where we live.

In its own words, “The mission of the Dearborn County Solid Waste District is to foster a sense of responsibility and inspire action by Dearborn County Residents to reduce solid waste by creating an awareness and commitment to reduction, reuse and recycling programs.” The removal of the recycling trailer is not consistent with the full implementations of this mission.

A meeting of citizens interested in addressing this issue will be held at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, August 3, at the North Dearborn Branch of the Lawrenceburg Public Library, North Dearborn and Dole Roads. The future of Bright, as that of the rest of the county, is in the hands of the citizens who direct the actions of elected officials.

Meeting details:
Bright Futures
August 3, 7 p.m.
North Dearborn Branch Library
North Dearborn and Dole Roads.For further information, call 812 656-8866.

Bob Sauerbrey
1928 Oakridge Dr.
Lawrenceburg (Bright) IN 47025
812 656-8866

5 July 2011 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes

5 July 2011 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes

Present: Jeff Hughes, President, Tom Orschell, and Shane McHenry
Also present: Gayle Pennington, Auditor, Bill Ewbank, County Coordinator, and Andy Baudendistel, Attorney.

OLD BUSINESS:

Private real property Rights Preservation Ordinance- tabled again.

Revised Jail Expansion Project- Orschell says there are some legitimate questions that need to be answered- Tabled.

North Dearborn Road Realignment East of Dover- Todd Listerman said they got preliminary approval from DNR to shorten the ditch of the project and if IDEM approves, they won’t have to use Reinhardt’s property. Tabled to get that info. Hughes said that Reinhardt told him that they didn’t need that big of a road- a highway was not necessary. He also wasn’t sure of the accident numbers there. He also thought the appraisals were low. He may show up tonight and if he does Hughes wanted to give him the opportunity to speak. He was worried about potential sale for a house and this might devalue it. The land was appraised at $8,000 an acre and for the very small piece he was offered $200. The county could go to $1,000 to avoid court costs. McHenry said- hopefully we can avoid the whole issue if DNR and IDEM agree.

NEW BUSINESS:

Assessor’s Vending Contract- already signed has been returned for correction by the DLGF. So they want it signed again $46,000 with Tyler Technology. Baudendistel said the DLGF was worried about liability to the state and so it was corrected. Commissioners resigned the contract.

Barnes and Thornburg Lobbyist Proposal –We have been involved with the county for a number of years. At the federal level they worked on our transportation issues especially with respect to the casinos. At that time the feds were receptive. This took the form of lobbying for earmarks for designated highway funds. They had some success with that. They had a several year hiatus, Now they represent several counties in Indiana. Earmarks are now going to be called something else. They will come through grants, allocations to the state, etc. They help now to do 2 things in other counties. It has been set up so that more money will flow through the state highway program. The MPOs will also be affected by this. Be more vigilant with highway people to work with state to get priorities approved. You need to be positioned with those people to get what you need for your projects. He said he’s been in this business more than 30 years and you benefit by having squeaky wheels up there in Indy. The Justice Institute is also preparing several grants and they help shape those for us. Because the federal government is so vast they can help also with other issues, such as flooding issues. They are there to help supplement our dollars with state and federal money and grants. The cost benefit of their prior contracts has been good.
You have to decide from your perspective, if you want to invest in our services again. McHenry said that we hear from Listerman that we need money for North Dearborn and Collier Ridge Bridge. Listerman said they would be more helpful with the long-range plans more than the local ones just mentioned. We need help to make sure INDOT doesn’t let those die on the INDOT Roads. Orschell said that the bridge at St. Leon would be an example- where we wanted more lanes there than just 3 , because of the schools there etc. Barnes and Thornburg’s rep said lobbying is also about education so the politicians know our needs. The good news now is that with an 18 month cycle coming up- for elections- both candidates will be receptive. We have heard there may be more money coming out. You want to be prepared. Shelf ready projects help to keep you competitive. You have to be there and be pushy. Orschell if we sign, will you come down and get our needs? They said they would for about an hour or so. There’s not a lot of money out there for parks for example. When a grant is denied, they want you to send the denial and then we will find out WHY you’ve been denied. They have had some limited success with subsequent filings. The good thing about earmarks is that INDOT had to work with it then. Hughes said- the Wilson Creek reoairs have been denied and he ultimately found out from the INDOT Commissioner that no one was banging on his door from here, like the others were. Hughes said that sometimes the MPOs are just another layer of bureaucracy to get through. There are questions being asked about the MPO’s and their necessity in the funding process. There is a lot of reporting process for lobbyists now and so this contract has more language as a result. This agreement is general so that we can use it for transportation, criminal justice, some homeland security stuff. [NOTE: How does Barnes and Thornburg decide which of their counties that are under contract get the most attention? What if they are all going for the same funding source?]
The contract is annual but it runs month to month so it can be terminated in 30 days. If we use them a lot more, then they may come in and talk about fees. Orschell wanted to take it home and read it. McHenry also liked the language about the termination of services. Commissioners decided to take time to think about this until next meeting on July 19th at 9 AM. They will love to meet with the sheriff also if they sign this.

Appointment of a Commissioner to Personnel Advisory Committee= Bill Ewbank said that they had omitted forming the advisory committee when they had signed the personnel policy about 6 months ago. Some of the complaint processes are starting to percolate through the dept. heads.
The advisory committee consists of the Auditor , Resources Officer, one commissioner ,and 2 council members. Hughes said he was willing to serve thru December- approved.

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT: Todd Listerman, Highway Engineer
ROW acquisition for Bridge 102, North Dearborn by Creekside- contract for United Consulting for $25,305. Approved.

Message signs for US 50 which is 100% federal funding through the MPO. Approved the INDOT contract for $297,500.

Spoken to a couple property owners by Bridge 102 so they are aware of the process. They want it ready for construction summer 2012 when school is out.

Needs permission to get another $250,000 to buy ROW for the Stateline project in Bright. Hope to have it done in 2013. Approved to go to Council to seek funds.
Cook Road- $750,000- DNR will pick up 80%- and our $150,000 share can be done in like services. Orschell has seen the site- it’s a new- recurring problem. Todd Listerman approved to seek money from Council.

Listerman has not been able to get together with Mr. Irwin on Short Road. The ROW should not be a problem to acquire.

The school flashers project may need 3 commissioners to sign off the plan sheet. Baudendistel said it was OK for him to bring it to them individually to sign outside the meeting. They may not need a plan sheet. If they do this would cover the time sensitivity issue. Approved.

Hughes called Listerman with a question from Fred Stegemiller about the ability to add a sidewalk on the other side of the bridge. Listerman called Barker who had this project. He said the sidewalk would be an additional $200,000 and no extra money. They also have 2 utility lines that would have to be relocated- major sewer and water lines. It is also an historic bridge, so it would require hearings etc. The question was asked because of the bike path etc. Listerman will tell Stegemiller about this.

McHenry brought up a road problem on Timber Ridge- after explaining to Hughes that he didn’t want to step on toes in his district.

AUDITOR: Gayle Pennington- approved minutes from May 4 and June 7. Payroll was signed. McHenry said Sheriff Kreinhop wanted them to hold an $11,630 claim to Commercial Electronics Corp. until they get the system fixed. They are having continued problems with it. It’s recording equipment for interviews. Pennington will hold the claim. The rest of the claims were approved.

449 visitors to the GIS site and 201 were during non-working hours.

Pennington said Hughes had asked about re-districting. They will address the precincts first. They are still waiting on some numbers from the state.

ATTORNEY: Andy Baudendistel- No recommendation came from the Plan Commission on Happy Hollow Road ROW. They will put it on the August 2nd meeting, the parties are going to try to negotiate before then.

They received a tort claim on the jail. The inmate did not have representation. He will follow that- their insurer has been notified.

Per Mr Votaw the warranty deed was signed by Mr Cunningham and so now the county owns the old Votaw Building.

COUNTY COORDINATOR: Bill Ewbank presented Heart House- Emergency Shelter Grant program certification of local approval – was signed by Jeff Hughes. This is needed to participate in that program.

IHCEA- Lifetime Housing- Section 106 Historic Review for rehab or renovation requires approval of the Commissioners for individual houses. Hughes signed the CABG papers for the 2 homes- one in Lawrenceburg and one in West Harrison
.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS- Hughes asked about the Solid Waste recycle bin that was removed. He wants to send Bill Ewbank to the Park Board meeting at 6 PM at the County Farm about this. He talked to Woodsy and to Bob Ewbank the Park Board attorney. He talked to Jim Hughes and Bryan Messmore- for Council to see if they would fund the fence. Orschell said he would attend that meeting. He’d see if Sandy Whitehead would attend also for Solid Waste. They don’t want to step on either board’s toes.

LATE ARRIVAL INFORMATION- none

PUBLIC COMMENT- none

Meeting adjourned at 7:40 PM

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township

Agenda for July 5th Commissioners Meeting

AGENDA
DEARBORN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
July 5, 2011
6:00 p.m., Commissioners Room
County Administration Building
215 B West High Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana


I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. OLD BUSINESS
1. Private Real Property Rights Preservation Ordinance
2. Revised Jail Expansion Project
3. North Dearborn Road Re-alignment East of Dover

IV. NEW BUSINESS
1. Assessor’s Vending Contract
2. Barnes & Thornberg – Lobbyist proposal
3. Appointment of one Commissioner on Personnel Advisory Committee

V. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT- Todd Listerman
Updates

VI. AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington
1. Claims/Minutes

VII. ATTORNEY - Andy Baudendistel

VIII. COUNTY COORDINATOR – Bill Ewbank
1. Emergency shelter Grant Program Certification of Local Approval, Heart House

IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

X. LATE ARRIVAL INFORMATION

XI. PUBLIC COMMENT

XII. ADJOURN

Jail Size Is NOT The Problem.

States across the country are trying to cut budget deficits by reducing their prison populations, rewriting their criminal laws and, reconsidering who should be incarcerated. Meanwhile, our local government is planning a $12 million expansion of the Dearborn County Jail, which will carry with it an annual operating cost of $1.34 million when filled.^[1] A jail expansion is not needed. There are alternative solutions to the “overcrowding” problem. These alternatives should be explored and more questions should be asked before the County embarks on a costly jail expansion.

One solution is changing how bonds are set. Persons charged with a crime are normally given a “bond”, an amount they can pay to be released from jail while their case is pending. Under Indiana law, the purposes of bond are to make certain the person charged shows up at future court dates and to protect the community from violent offenders. Judges have the power to set bonds. In most counties, bonds are set in cash or surety. A cash bond requires the total amount be paid in cash before the accused can get out of jail. A surety bond requires 10% of the amount be paid, generally to a bail bondsman. The bail bondsman guarantees the person’s appearance in court.

The vast majority of the time, our judges set bond in two parts, requiring both a cash bond AND a surety bond. One purpose of this practice is to collect court costs, fines, and probation fees up front. This has resulted in higher bonds for minor charges than in many counties. Many people arrested are unable to post bond and sit in jail pending the resolution of their case. A study
performed by RQAW, the company chosen to advise the county whether a new jail is needed, verified that 45 to 50% of people in our jail are being held pre-trial on misdemeanor charges.^[2] Misdemeanors have a possible penalty of 1 year or less. Crimes such as first time OWI, first time possession of marijuana, disorderly conduct, underage drinking and battery without serious injury are misdemeanors. Many, if not most of these people do not pose a danger to the community nor pose a high risk of failing to appear on the scheduled court dates and therefore should not be held in jail while their case is pending.

The Dearborn County jail holds 216 people. According to the RQAW study, last year our average jail population was 258 inmates.^[3] At least 116, or 45%, of those people were held on minor charges because they could not post bond. If even half of those people were released pre-trial on lower bonds, written promises to appear, or house arrest, the jail “overcrowding” problem would not exist.

In addition to setting more reasonable bonds, there are other simple, less expensive alternatives to the overcrowding problem. The American Bar Association in a report released earlier this year offered two proposals. First, more closely identify those persons pre-trial who are truly a risk to fail to appear in court or who are actually a danger to the community. Second, increase the use of alternative pre-trial detention tools, such as house arrest, to monitor persons while they await trial.

In addition to exploring these alternatives, the following questions should be answered before the debate is closed and Dearborn County forces the taxpayers to spend an additional $12 million and commits the taxpayers to cover the additional $1.34 million operating expenses each year after the jail is filled:

• The RQAW study estimates when the new jail reaches 100% occupancy, it will require $1.34 million per year for administration and operating expenses. Where will that money come from?



• How does the size of the Dearborn County jail compare to other counties in Indiana of similar population?






• Dearborn County, population 50,502^[4] , proposed jail size 440^[5] beds



• Boone County , population 56,287, jail size 221 beds^[6]



• Floyd County, population 74,426, jail size 234 beds^[7]



• Henry County, population 47,827, 130 beds^[8]



• Noble County, population 48,028, 259 beds^[9]



• Why does Dearborn County require more jail space than comparable counties?



• Why is the average length of stay in Dearborn County jail 70% to 100% longer^[10] than the average stay for other jails studied by RQAW?



• Does Dearborn County use its community corrections (house arrest, work release, road crew) programs the same way other counties in Indiana do?



• Could Dearborn County more effectively use its community corrections programs to eliminate the jail overcrowding problem?



• What types of offenders can be released pre-trial without danger to the community?



• How much of the new proposed jail is allocated for administration and office space for the sheriff's department? Can the sheriff’s department utilize existing office space or off-site county space?

A $12 million jail expansion will cost Dearborn County $237.61 per resident. The does not include operating costs of $1.34 million per year ($26.53 per year per resident). We have a responsibility to investigate all available alternatives and demand the County obtain all the answers before we commit to building a jail we really don’t need.


N. Alan Miller, III

Douglas A. Garner



[1] RQAW Report Executive Summary, page 9
[2] RQAW Report Appendix C, page 18
[3] RQAW Report Executive Summary, page 2
[4] County population estimates are from July 1, 2009. See: www.stats.indiana.edu/population/popTotals/2009_cntyest.asp
[5] RQAW Report Executive Summary, page 5
[6]www.boonecountyindianasheriff.com/c/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=75
[7] http://fcsdin.homestead.com/FCPD-Corrections.html
[8] http://www.henryco.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5&Itemid=4
[9] http://www.noblecountysheriff.org/Annual_Jail_Report.html
[10] RQAW Report Appendix C, page 15

JOINT COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONERS JAIL INFO MEETING

29 June 2011 Joint Dearborn County Council and Commissioners Meeting Notes

Present: Dennis Kraus. Sr., President, Dan Lansing, Jim Hughes, Liz Morris, Maynard Barrett, and Bill Ullrich.

ABSENT: Bryan Messmore

Commissioners Hughes and Orschell were also present.

ABSENT: Shane McHenry

Also present: Bill Ewbank, County Coordinator

Jeff Hughes said he’d called the meeting to get more information regarding the referendum. He had talked to the attorney from AIC (Association of Indiana Counties) and asked him to come. Collette of Umbaugh and Associates also presented financial information.

Collette: $15.5 million is the general obligation debt limit for the county.
The jail project is now at $11,260,000. The scenarios are similar to what they presented before- but the amount are different due to the decrease in cost.
They were to figure these without getting any property tax INCREASE for the project.
If borrow the full amount ($11million+)- requires $855,000 and $130,000 RR each year. The other scenarios require less tax revenue. Collette said we have a lot of options and financial flexibility.

Rick Hall, the Barnes and Thornburg attorney for AIC, then spoke. If you use riverboat revenue exclusively to pay the bond, you would have a property tax levy to back this up. The process takes about 60 days. The Council adopts and ordinance that approves the bonds, give public notice to get the lowest bidder.
IF property taxes are involved there are two separate processes.

If it’s less than $12miliion- and that is the TOTAL cost of the project, you have to file an additional remonstrance process.

Dan Lansing asked – what if it goes over the $12 million during the process. No answer.

The petition remonstrance process has a timeline. The Council announces they are going to issue bonds. Taxpayers – voters and property owners (at least 100) would have to file to have a petition process WITHIN 30 DAYS. If they succeed, there is a period where these petitions are circulated for EACH side of the question. Whoever has the most signatures wins. This could stop the process for one year. Then the county can try again if they want. This takes about 180 days and another 60 days to get bonds issued. If 100 voters don’t do this then the county proceeds with the project.

Over $12million is a referendum process. The county CAN require a referendum even if it’s under $12million. Council holds a public hearing and preliminarily decides to issue the bonds. This triggers a 30 day time period where 100 voters can ask for a referendum. If they don’t the county can move forward without the voters deciding.

If they do come forward, they are verified and it goes to the DLGF to approve what is on the ballot. It takes about 150 days. The first time that could possibly occur for us would be the primary election in 2012.

The first question is – do you want to levy property taxes and incur debt service?
Jim Hughes questioned the need to incarcerate all these people.

Bill Ullrich said there are a lot of different cases out there.

Maynard Barrett said the judges are doing their job and the sheriff is doing his job- our job is to provide the place for them to do this.

Jim Hughes said we are going to lose RR eventually- then what?

Dan Lansing- you are going to use RR to do this, then we don’t have it for the other things we use it for. Either way you end up raising taxes.

Bill Ullrich brought up the age old story about the potential of a lawsuit.

If that happened and it gets mandated by a federal judge, then you don’t have to comply with a referendum or remonstrance process. The judge decides the cost of the project.

Liz Morris said the staffing costs are neutral because of the new technology. She asked how the remonstrance process worked.

Rick Hall said there are DLGF prescribed forms and then people who are on each side use these forms. You have to have a coordinated system out there of people for this- you cannot use local officials to do this. The county clerk would be overseeing this.

If you get all the money up front- no referendum is required. If they pay it with RR only- that’s no referendum either.

What triggers referendum or remonstrance is if you incur debt and any part of it is payable with tax revenue. And in both cases there is a 30 day time window for a petition of 100 voters to be filed to require the remonstrance or the referendum.

Lansing said- new slate in L-bg- a new mayor and 4 new council people- wait and see what happens there. We may get some money.

Rick Hall said you can annually decide what you are going to use to pay the debt.

Per Kraus, Sr.; 2.2 million RR and 680,000 lost revenue last year.

We need broader tax base per Morris.

Jeff Hughes said there are some questions regarding the length of stay of people in the jail. They want to look into that some more.

Bill Ullrich- said that if we have extra room over there we can bring money into this county. Years ago we were housing federal prisoners and making money on them. $130,000 a year is being paid out to other counties to house people we don’t have room for.[NOTE: So are we opening up a jail business in the county at taxpayer expense?]

Jeff Hughes said if there were money to be made we’d see more private prisons.

Marion county has a privately owned jail. It has a deal with the county to take a certain number of inmates from Marion County.

Jim Hughes said jail shouldn’t be a cakewalk- we shouldn’t be operating a hotel for them.

Bond Counsel for jail project is about $50,000.

Meeting adjourned at 7:40 PM

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township

27 June 2011 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes

27 June 2011 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes


Present: Mike Hall, Chairman, Dennis Kraus Jr., Mark Lehman, Mike Hornbach, Dan Lansing, and Ken Nelson

ABSENT: Russell Beiersdorfer, Jeff Hughes, and Jake Hoog

Also Present: Mark McCormack, Plan Director, and Arnie McGill, Attorney.

Tim and Shari Richter are requesting a one year extension for the primary plat approval of Georgetown Acres Section 3. They are still trying to work out something with the new sewer plan that VRUC is doing and they have consulted with Greendale. Greendale is going to wait until they see what VRUC does with its improvements per the owner. They asked for a two year extension if possible. No public spoke. Nelson moved to grant the 2 year extension, with the requirement that the sub’n must comply with the fees and standards that are in place at the time that they move forward with the application. Could not catch who seconded. Approved with all ayes.

OLD BUSINESS SCHEDULED TO BE REOPENED:

Vacate a portion of Happy Hollow Road- applicant Rob Seig and Owner David Lykins’Jackson and York Townships on 5.169 acres of Ag zoned land. Jeff Stenger was surveyor for the Engels. His survey showed there is 2.49 ft of frontage of Engels on this road. Board asked for only new information to be presented on this item.

Stenger of JDJ surveying and engineering represents the Engels– said that he apologized for not having this resolved by this meeting, They have pro-forma surveys because there are more boundary issues. The numbers are accurate and will be on the final retracement survey. The boundary summary is the overall view of john and Barb Engel and also Greg Engel. There are differences in the N-S line. This line goes 5.27 feet further than Seigs’s survey. There is a slight curvature of the road where this meets and this results in the extra road frontage. There’s a lot of other evidence out there that shows where that line really is. Stenger showed the historical divisions of the original section 5 land from the original owner (Angevine) Engel was the first divisions and so they have senior rights. The court ordered divisions of some of the last parcels shows the original 45 chains length of the Engel’s lines and the Lykins lines. These lines were converted to a quarter section – Stenger believes incorrectly- and so there is overlap. Lykins’s 20 acre tract is senior to Engels 30 acre piece. The 40 acre piece then has senior rights and the full line to the road and 2.49 ft of frontage on Happy Hollow Road. He said based on this he recommends an UNFAVORABLE recommendation to vacate Happy Hollow Road.

Seig representing Lykins- said that prescriptive easement is when a person is using a road openly for 20 years or more for an access. He said Stenger’s survey is a pro-forma survey and they have been trying to negotiate a settlement and that has not happened. He agrees with the section lines. The junior senior rites show Engel’s 40 acres, then Lykins’s 20, then Engel’s 30. When he did the original survey he did set a pin on that road area. It was within about 2 ft of the old one set by Fishvogt, a surveyor for Engels, in 1970s. We weren’t charged to survey the road at that time. He took a 2nd look recently on the north south line and this closely matches the line he has surveyed. He said if you get another surveyor out there you will get another answer. He said Mr. was paid to get frontage and his survey shows this touches the road. Again another surveyor might get another answer. He tried to duplicate Stenger’s line and he had roughly an 8 inches variance on where it touches the line. Seig apologized for them not getting things worked out before meeting here. He says there is not enough frontage for vehicle access- needs 50 ft and so he wants a FAVORABLE recommendation to vacate.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

John Engel- Sept 1949 was when his grandpa bought this. The first surveyor to come out there was Roger Woodfill. Even though lots were already sold. He has lived there 60 years and that road has moved. But how can you prove that? That road is the only access to that piece. In 1962 these roads were shown plainly when his uncle owned this.

Arnie McGill said we’re hearing a lot of evidence and we are not going to make the decision. I would send it to the Commissioners with NO recommendation as there is conflicting evidence without sworn evidence.

Engle then said-that he was new at this and that he should be addressing the board. He said that the county was going to put a turnaround back there- and then all hell broke loose and here we are.

Greg Engel- there is access established and whether I walk it or drive to it- I have access. Maintenance work hasn’t been done by the county and with the gate there- that’s how the roads move. Work has done back there without the county’s knowledge. Creech had bulldozers etc. Would you keep that open so I have access for hunting at least?

Seig- said that there was meaningful access to that 30 acres with previous old roadways. To the east there is one strip of ground that goes over to Ester Ridge and that may be their means of access to that 30 acre parcel. I don’t know the history. I did my survey specific to the property. We have established junior-senior rights. Noah Creech has received evidence that the road was moved further east and further away from them previously. The 2 sons of Noah would be able to state that if contacted.

Aaron Caudell ( sp?) Engel’s son-in-law- asked just how much is needed as frontage to keep it open. Hall said that is up to the commissioners.

Seig asked if the county surveyor would weigh in. Kraus, Jr. immediately said- said absolutely not- only a judge could settle this between two surveys.

End Public Discussion

Nelson moved to pass this with NO Recommendation to the Commissioners because there is a discrepancy with the surveys. Lehman seconded. Board approved the NO Recommendation.

ADMINISTRATIVE:
OKI Water Quality Maps: Draft facility planning area map for water quality and sewers will be changed so that will determine where some of our developments go.

August 18th Wed- will be a planning training session. The rates will be at a good rate if we get enough people here for it. KK Gerhart Fritz- will be giving the 2 hour workshop- starts at 7 PM.

$58,500- for comp fire and emerg services grant was awarded.

$7,000 plus grant was awarded for a speed monitor like on US 50.

Meeting adjourned at 8:20 PM

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township

ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO DEARBORN COUNTY GOVERNMENT WEBSITE

ORDINANCE 2011-008

ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO DEARBORN COUNTY GOVERNMENT WEBSITE

An Ordinance to establish the rules regarding the Dearborn County government website:

WHEREAS, Dearborn County, Indiana maintains a website on the World Wide Web
with the address of http://www.dearborncounty.org; and

WHEREAS, this website is intended to be a resource for the citizens of Dearborn County
and assist in efficient service to our citizens; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners believe it to be in the best interest of Dearborn
County that this website not convey any suspicion of favoritism and/or bias by providing links to
private businesses and/or organizations; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners believe, in the interest of not conveying any
suspicion of favoritism and/or bias, that the county website include matter that is strictly related
to government services that may be helpful to the citizens of Dearborn County.

THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that upon enactment of this ordinance, the Dearborn
County government website, located at http://www.dearborncounty.org, shall only contain links
to government services and resources and shall no longer contain any links to outside websites
belonging to private businesses and/or organizations. This ordinance shall be reviewed as the
Board of Commissioners see fit and shall be amended, in writing, by vote of the Board of
Commissioners.

ALL OF WHICH IS ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Dearborn County,Indiana this the 21st day of June, 2011.