Editorial: APC Meeting On Data Center

I’ve got multiple things to address in one post, which might be a bit cumbersome. These are my thoughts and views alone and hope that others can learn from it.

APC THOUGHTS:
I thought the APC did a fantastic job last night. Liz did a phenomenal job considering all of the information she had to analyze and present and making sure everyone could hear. She was extremely professional. The spirit in the room and of the board was not one of animosity or tension and I thought the board was extremely respectful and professional. Again, Grant Mohler needs recognized for doing the right thing by recusing his vote and respectfully exiting the meeting. Well done.

Our public servants have a hard job and we must recognize that. They signed up for a job where they only hear from people when something is wrong. It’s just the nature of it, but we must make sure we acknowledge the good work that is done, too, while still holding them accountable to their oath.

My main critique is with the format of these meeting. After public comment, the petitioner gets to go back to the podium to answer questions and essentially “rebut” what was presented by the People. However, the People are not given a chance to address the petitioner’s claims thereafter. This is what I would have added, if given the chance:

1. Mr. Swain claimed that this data project is not getting public dollars, just sales tax incentives. Let’s analyze that for a moment- the sales tax incentives discussed can be found in IC 6-2.5-15 through the IEDC. The IEDC on its own is an unconstitutional agency. So we have an unconstitutional agency enforcing statutes for sales tax incentives to data centers . The break on sales tax is money that otherwise would not be going into “the pot.” Where are the sales tax incentives for the People? See the issues? (See Article 1, Section 23 of Indiana’s Constitution). In addition, in July President Trump signed an EO granting money to these data centers (also unlawful). Maybe Mr. Swain is correct that his project isn’t getting public monies, but there is enough reason to believe otherwise. This is why the affidavit read last night stated FULL DISCLOSURE needs to be made of where the funds for this project are coming from. Simple and reasonable.

2. Mr. Swain addressed property rights for the owners selling their land. He is right that anyone can sell their land to anyone, but that is just half the truth.
Government can (and does) regulate commerce for the common good. Who decides the common good? The People (See Indiana Constitution Article 1, Section 31). This is an extreme example, but hopefully it gets the point across-

Let’s say someone wanted to sell their land so that a prostitution business could be developed. “Hey it would bring a lot of tax revenue! It would bring jobs! It would broaden the tax base!” Would our community allow that? No. Because we as a community have decided we don’t want that kind of business here. It’s not who we are. It’s distributive to our culture and customs. So that can be applied to any other business, too. If the People decide it goes against custom, culture, the common good, their well being, or they just don’t want it – the government actually has an obligation to do the will of the People and vote “no.” Again, an extreme example, but my attempt to make evident that once the People and public servants remember and recognize that the People hold ALL POWER (Indiana Constitution Article 1, Section 1), things will shift.

A real life example would be the counties across the USA that are “dry counties.” Ie- they don’t sell alcohol. Why? Because the People there said they didn’t want that business. So when the government says, “there’s really nothing we can do to stop this business coming in,” they are misinformed or getting bad advice.

Summary- you can sell your land to who you want, but the government can regulate commerce for the common good. The People decide the common good, the government doesn’t decide it for us.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
I hope that some elected officials in the audience saw things in a new light – especially as it relates to economic development. I hope they will read the Supreme Court cases mentioned. We need an entire shift in thinking in the way we view government’s role and spending. We need to get back to what our forefather’s intended.

Mr. Chenowyth who is on the APC board and the county council can hopefully bring some of this information back to the council, as they are going into budget meetings soon. It was brought up last night that the county needs “the revenue,” but I would challenge this way of thinking. First, now that we know that public money cannot be used for non-public purposes, let’s start there. Let’s cut where we aren’t even authorized to be spending in the first place. Again, I know that is an unpopular statement and even private things that we consider “good” would lose money. But we have been governing very wrong for many decades, giving monies to entities never supposed to receive it. We’ve got to shift our thinking back to the fundamentals.

Put simply: No public money for non public purposes. (And an increase in tax revenue or tax base is not a public purpose).

ANOTHER POTENTIAL MEETING AT THE PARK:
Finally, I’ve had so many reach out to me still wanting to sign an affidavit. Comment below or message me if interested. I want everyone who wants the chance to lawfully instruct their government to do so. I’m thinking we might have to organize another meeting at the park soon to do that. Those curious can refer to the meeting from last night – as the affidavit is stating no public money for non public purposes, like economic development. This is broader than just a data center.

NOTICES:
Hopefully some of you learned what a lawful notice was last night. Essentially a notice is telling the government they have done/are doing something wrong which needs corrected, but it’s not always limited to that. You likely heard Kelly and Susan read two into the record. It was cumbersome to read that many notices plus an affidavit in one meeting, but this had to be done. The record matters. Here’s why:

1. Our government was sent those notices at the end of July/first week of august and had not responded.
2. They also would not respond to an email confirming they received them.
3. Nor would they state on a phone call if they received them. “You’ll have to call the attorney.”

They were read into the record so the government can’t say they “didn’t get them.” Now that they are in the record, servants need to be amenable to the People and make a public response, as instructed on the notices. Other counties have responded. Why can’t ours?
(This is again where I will say, let’s always give positive feedback where it’s due, while also holding servants accountable to their job).
Links are below which you can sign.

ATTORNEYS
Attorneys are the linchpin in government right now. Go to any public meeting and you’ll see what I mean.
Let me be clear – I am not anti attorney. I am anti attorneys giving advice that violates our constitutional rights, and attorneys seem to always be operating in “statues.” Statues aren’t constitution and when not in pursuance to constitutions are void.

When our government raises their hand and swears an oath to protect our rights and uphold the laws of the constitution, they are bound by that oath. An attorney (getting paid with public money) cannot be giving advice which violates our constitutional rights, which the servants swore to protect. See the issue? Government swears to the constitution. Attorneys don’t swear to anything.

This is why it is so important for the People AND the public servants to be well versed in their constitutions. Then you will know when an attorney is giving advice that violates rights (this unfortunately happens more than you think). AND government servants can be held PERSONALLY liable when they commit an unofficial act (See Supreme Court case Trump v. United States). I have extended an open invitation to many officials in the county to come and learn and I hope they will.

Finally, we need to be demanding better of our county attorneys. When I was reading the affidavit at the podium last night I could hear the attorney behind me snickering. This was confirmed by other eyewitnesses in the crowd. If he disagrees with what we have said in the claims, or thinks it’s totally ludicrous, he is welcome to submit his own sworn statement. However, many, many people cared enough about this issue to submit a sworn statement so that they are heard in the law. That’s not funny and his behavior lacked professional decorum.
Attorneys often operate in statue land. Our entire judicial system has gotten away from the fundamentals.

I have met so many new faces in our community in the last month. Regardless of opinions, it is evident that all want what is best for our community. People intuitively know the government isn’t functioning correctly but don’t know any other way than to “vote them out.” I am glad that more people are looking to the constitution – we were left with a blessing. Perhaps this will inspire more to get involved with government- it’s supposed to be working for you!