Editor,
During a recent Carmel city council meeting, councilor Luci Snyder rattled off a litany of reasons as to why the request by Mayor Jim Brainard for additional money to fix streets should be denied. Specifically, she was defending her opposition for an additional $800,000 to come from the city’s rainy day fund. As she often likes to do, she included the Carmel Redevelopment Commission as a body which has required fiscal intervention while confirming her expertise on the subject. When the mayor asked the council to reconsider his request for additional road repair money because of the harsh winter, she said, “Rainy day funds exist for emergencies. A harsh winter is one of them. Another is a large pending lawsuit hanging over the CRC. If they lose … money will have to come out of rainy day fund.” Although not well articulated, she meant if the lawsuit goes against the CRC, the money to pay will have to come from the RDF and thus it should not be used for streets. One slight problem with her logic is a glaring detail she overlooks. There is no lawsuit hanging over the CRC which would result in a payout. The CRC has filed a Palladium construction claim against a contractor for shoddy workmanship. As a plaintiff, there is no penalty for losing, but if a judgment goes in favor of the CRC, the commission stands to gain up to $6 million dollars. Although anyone can misspeak, it does seem odd for councilor Snyder to be so misinformed or at the very least, to not comprehend the elementary difference between plaintiff and defendant. False information publicly disseminated as fact by elected officials is damaging to all, but especially when it involves pending litigation.
Tom Schmith, 46032