On Wednesday night, Bloomington’s city council just barely passed a resolution opposing the construction of a pipeline in north central Indiana for the diversion of water from the Wabash River.
The resolution, which had been put forward by Andy Ruff, got support from just five councilmembers, which is a majority on the nine-member body. Voting for it were: Ruff, Dave Rollo, Isabel Piedmont- Smith, Hopi Stosberg and Courtney Daily.
Abstaining on the vote were: Matt Flaherty, Sydney Zulich, Isak Asare, and Kate Rosenbarger.
The resolution passed with some amendments, including one that added a request that the General Assembly establish a comprehensive water management plan.
The council had discussed the resolution opposing the LEAP pipeline at its March 6 meeting, but postponed it until this week.
Before the council voted, Bloomington mayor Kerry Thomson gave a clear indication she would not be signing the resolution, or any similar resolutions in the future.
Addressing the council, Thomson put it like this: “While it is your prerogative to pass resolutions that express viewpoints on matters that we do not oversee, as a matter of principle, I will not be signing any resolutions that do not directly impact the business of our city.”
Under state law, it looks like there are only two options for the mayor, after she is presented with the resolution by the city clerk—sign it, or veto it. If the mayor vetoes a resolution, she has to return it to the council with a veto announcement and the reason for the veto. [Added at 11:30 a.m. on March 28, 2024: State law indicates that if the mayor “fails to perform the executive’s duty” of either signing or vetoing, the resolution is considered vetoed.]
That could set up Thomson for two vetoes in her first 100 days of office. Council president Isabel Piedmont-Smith stated at Wednesday’s meeting that she and Dave Rollo would be co-sponsoring a resolution for introduction next Wednesday (April 3) that calls for “humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza.” [Added March 28, 2204 at 6:17 p.m. Included in the city council’s meeting information packet posted today (because of the Friday holiday) is a copy of the resolution.]
Wednesday’s council meeting was bookended by public commentary asking for the council to take up and pass a resolution calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. Some speakers at the public mic rejected the idea that humanitarian aid could be provided without a ceasefire. Others maintained that any such resolution had to include a condemnation of Hamas for the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks into Israel.
The audience in city council chambers on Wednesday included at least 120 people, including those who were seated in the balcony.
The meeting, which started at 6:30 p.m., ended well after midnight.
Thomson will not have to contemplate whether she will veto an ordinance that gives a historic designation to Lower Cascades Park. On Wednesday, the historic protection ordinance for the park received support from just three councilmembers—Rollo, Ruff, and Daily.
The one piece of legislation that is sure to stick from Wednesday’s city council meeting is a resolution requesting that the food and beverage tax advisory commission (FABTAC) consider a request from the Monroe County capital improvement board (CIB) for the use of $250,000 in food and beverage tax revenue. The FABTAC has a noon meeting on Thursday (March 28) scheduled to consider the request.
Ruff used his report time at the start of the meeting to deliver a speech in defense of resolutions like the one he had put forward on the LEAP (Limitless Exploration/Advanced Pace) District pipeline.
He led off by saying, “Bloomington city council has a long history of using the tool and power of resolutions to express positions and make statements about larger issues and policies that extend beyond and affect beyond our people of our community and our city, state, and our national borders—those issues that Bloomington and the council have no direct power over, or official involvement in.”
Ruff labeled such resolutions “advocacy resolutions.”
Ruff served on the council from 2000 to 2019, but returned to the council starting this year. Ruff ticked through a list of advocacy resolutions from his previous 20 years of service on the city council.
They included: a resolution opposing SB 590, which mandated policies on how the state would treat undocumented immigrants; a resolution supporting marriage equality in Indiana; a resolution supporting the full expansion of Medicaid in Indiana; and resolution opposing construction of a new-terrain I-69; a resolution opposing the invasion of Iraq; and a resolution in support of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, among others.
Ruff described how there had been some in the community who opposed such advocacy resolutions, based on the idea that they were beyond the scope of the city council’s work. But in the early 2000s, when the U.S. government contemplated the closure of NSA Crane, about 25 miles southwest of Bloomington, opponents of such advocacy resolutions changed their minds, and even helped to draft Resolution 02-08, opposing the closure of Crane, Ruff said.
Ruff said that previous opponents of advocacy resolutions supported Resolution 02-08, even though it failed their own “bright line” test for the kind of resolution that they felt was appropriate for Bloomington’s city council to consider.
Later in the meeting, when the council took up the resolution on the LEAP pipeline, councilmember Matt Flaherty challenged Ruff’s contention that there is any “bright line” test for such resolutions.
Flaherty said, “It’s just not a bright line at all—I mean, it’s a spectrum, I guess.” About the resolution opposing the LEAP pipeline, Flaherty said, “This feels like pretty far down the spectrum of the kinds of issues that we should be directly addressing.”
Flaherty gave some other examples far down on that spectrum, which he indicated he also did not think Bloomington’s city council should take up: “We could oppose every coal plant around the state. We could ask every single utility to create a decarbonisation plan. We could ask other cities to develop climate action plans.”
In her remarks, Thomson said she does not believe that an official resolution is required for the city council to express its opinion on an issue.
Thomson told the council, “As mayor, it’s my role to serve the city of Bloomington with services and programs for our residents here in Bloomington.” She continued, “Respectfully, there is an incredible body of work in front of us, as leaders of this city today. There are significant problems that we are trying to solve.”
Thomson added, “And there are also many opportunities at hand which demand my full attention and I believe could demand yours as well.”
Thomson told the council: “I will be spending my time on the issues where I can effect change directly.”
As an alternative to a resolution that the council passes, which requires the mayor’s signature or veto, Thomson gave a letter signed jointly by councilmembers, supported by a vote of the council.
Rollo reacted to Thomson’s remarks by saying, “I’m not going to surrender our resolution as a means of acting.” He continued, saying that resolutions are a “long-established means.” Rollo added: “It’s one of two things we do—we pass ordinances and resolutions. And I’m not going to surrender resolutions.”
Rollo described a city council resolution as “a conduit for citizens to use, to reach up to their elected officials at the state and federal level.”
Ruff gave a response to Thomson’s stated approach to future resolutions: “We’re the council—this is what we do.” He added, “We have a long history of it. Mayor after mayor has had to deal with this—it sort of goes with the territory.”
When four councilmembers abstained on the resolution he put forward, Ruff asked if there was some mechanism for making a councilmember explain their abstention. Bloomington’s city code says that “If a member fails to vote upon any matter, any other member may raise the question and insist that the member either vote or state the reason for not voting and be excused.”
Given the late hour—it was a few minutes before midnight when the vote on the LEAP pipeline was taken—Ruff did not pursue the option of asking the four who abstained to explain further why they did not vote.
To take any action, the council needs a majority of five, no matter how many councilmembers participate in a vote. So the impact of an abstention is the same as a no vote.
Even if Thomson sends a veto message with the council immediately, the council would not be able to override it as early as next Wednesday. The meeting when the council can try to override it has to come at least 10 days after the resolution is presented to her by the city clerk.
Overriding a mayoral veto requires a two-thirds majority—that is, six of nine councilmembers.
Thank you, Mayor Thomson. You understand what you were elected to do in and for this community.
For this reason alone I love Mayor Thomson. Ruff and Rollo can blow hot air about federal and state issues that don’t impact Bloomington all they want but that’s all it is – hot air.
Also, Ruff’s example of a resolution opposing the the closure of Crane as hypocritical is moronic in itself. Closing Crane WOULD directly impact our community/economy. A ceasefire in Gaza or pipeline in the north of the state do not.
“I will not be signing any resolutions that do not directly impact the business of our city.”
Whatever the merits, at least there is the potential for council meetings to conclude in less than six hours. This is not a trivial thing for those who wish to present their case at a council meeting.
But I fear, like possessions multiplying to fill the space available, rhetoric will multiply to fill the waking hours, regardless.
Gaza? Really? The whole world has been unable to bend the path of Netanyahu, but somehow a resolution by the Bloomington Common Council will accomplish something meaningful?
It is a tale told by the well-intentioned, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
Exactly one month ago, Mayor Thompson signed and approved a resolution that had nothing to do with anything that City Council or the Mayor have any direct influence over and has no impact on the business of the city. So, Council Member Ruff’s assertion is correct. People usually support resolutions that they agree with, and when they don’t agree with them they simply say that Council doesn’t have any business taking them up in the first place.
So, all due respect to the new Mayor and everything, but it really appears that she is talking out of both sides of her mouth and making a very bad faith argument. I mean come on. Literally just one month ago she did the exact opposite of what she won’t do.
https://bloomington.in.gov/council/legislation/Resolution/2024/2024-03
Other than affecting our water quality and enhancing our regional draw as a recreation center, you may be right.
Yeah, a resolution regarding a bill that would establish protections for the watershed area of our drinking water source is TOTALLY the same as a resolution about Gaza. They both impact Bloomington exactly the same amount. Thank you for your brave and stunning take.
A long meeting, yes. However, I was grateful for the swift and unanimous approval on the CIB budget item. This was an essential step to achieving further progress on an important economic development goal for the community. I credit the city and county legal staffs, elected officials, and CIB team for their early planning and collaborative efforts toward achieving the smooth approval last night. After long last, it’s starting to feel like we, as a community, are hitting our stride on this project. It’s good to recognize the wins when they happen.
i happen to agree with mayor Thomson that it’s pointless to address issues that aren’t specific to Bloomington. and i’m frankly in awe of the bad faith argument that there’s a double standard. the Deam wilderness is a tremendous resource for Bloomington residents and upstream of our water supply. and NSWC Crane is a big employer that is very relevant to our local economy. i don’t even know if i agree with those resolutions but the suggestion that they aren’t relevant to city government is simply wrong. though fwiw i do support a ceasefire and an enduring peace that respects the fundamental rights of Palestinian people.
OTOH, i liked having that crowd in city council chambers. it was kind of frustrating watching them fall for Ruff’s attempt at grandstanding — but i’ve seen enough of him to know he can really take advantage of a crowd. but the ceasefire advocates had to sit through a report on sidewalk accessibility and one of the guys who showed up to support the ceasefire nonetheless used a few seconds of his brief comment time to address sidewalks! that room always sees a lot of comment from a very consistent small minority that actively opposes safe transportation, but when you bring in *any other group at all*, you will find that our residents are upset about our deep failure to provide safe and accessible pedestrian infrastructure!
but the part of this that really astonished me is how deeply cms Piedmont-Smith and Rollo whiffed their attempt to get in front of the crowd. the demand for a ceasefire has been so persistent and so specific (and so right!) for so long. to offer a resolution calling for ‘humanitarian aid’ instead is an insult. every part of our federal foreign policy aparatus already knows it has to make empty calls for humanitarian aid — it isn’t even moving the needle rhetorically! better to keep your mouth closed than to open your mouth and say specifically that you can’t listen!
They would have been better off spending time talking about chewing gum on the sidewalks instead of a cease fire in Gaza. From a phycological stand point you have to ask “Who do you council members think you are”
So a the okdest park we have and with WPA projects does nit get designated as historic?