First, we all need to understand that Tom Didier voted
against collective bargaining once and he has publically stated that he will do
it again. Regardless of any meeting with
Mayor Henry, that is Tom Didier’s position.
Second, Tom Didier’s statements were made during his February 20th, 2015 endorsement interview with the local firefighters union, whose panel included Jeremy Bush and one member of the Fraternal Order of Police. Didier’s interview occurred about an hour after my interview with them and immediately after Michelle Hill’s interview. The reason I know this is because Michelle Hill and I carpooled together that day. She organized our team to canvas the nearby businesses and residential neighborhood while I was having my interview and I was checking in with our team during her interview. Tom Didier arrived earlier to his interview and spent his first few moments trying to avoid an awkward exchange between him and I over his most recent decision to “unfriend” me. He tried entering the two side, locked doors before finally walking in front of my vehicle, acknowledging me with a forced smile and wave, as he moved quickly to the front door. The point of sharing this rather funny story is that Tom Didier’s comments were not “right before the election.” They were made two months ago.
Third, to the best of my knowledge NONE of the candidates
knew they were being tape-recorded. I
certainly did not. Cathy Cross was
interviewed before me – Cathy, did you know you were being tape-recorded? Michelle Hill was interviewed after me –
Michelle, did you know you were being tape-recorded? Because I did not know I was being recorded,
it is highly unlikely that Tom Didier knew he was being tape recorded.
Fourth, here in Indiana, a conversation can be tape recorded
as long as one person in the conversation knows that the conversation is being
tape recorded. Was this an underhanded
tactic?? Maybe. Was it a legal tactic? Yes.
Fifth, Tom Didier states that he was repeating a
conversation among himself, Mayor Tom Henry, and Mayorally-appointed, Deputy
Chief of Special Operations, Marty Bender – who as a councilman also voted to
terminate collective bargaining. One
question I have is why hasn’t Bender been interviewed by the media? Tom Didier has. The Mayor has. Why hasn’t Bender?
Sixth, Tom Didier --- like him or not, trust him or not ---
is being set up and hung out to dry, politically speaking. Prior to the 2015 election cycle, Tom Didier
had not received one dime from those who fund or have previously funded the
establishment. Didier’s biggest donation
of $5,000 came from Hotel Fitness founder Bruce Dye. My guess is then a donation from Mayor Henry’s
transitional team leader, Republican Ken Neumeister, would have been a little
too obvious.
[For those who don’t understand what I mean by the people
who fund the establishment, mostly they are members of the Northeast Indiana
Regional Partnership, especially the 2013-2014 crowd who had previously been or
remain members of the Downtown Improvement District d/b/a Downtown Development
Trust and The Alliance (economic development/redevelopment commissions) now
known collectively as Greater Fort Wayne, and the PACS they control---such as the
Indiana Realtors PAC, UPSTAR, etc. To gain
a better understanding of Ken Neumeister’s entanglements, please read my
Facebook posting of September 29th, 2014, entitled “WILL KEN NEUMEISTER BE
THE NEXT ASH “CASH & SLASH” BROKERAGE DEVELOPER??”[2]]
Why is Tom Didier being hung out to dry? Well, he’s not one of the “in-crowd” so to
speak, otherwise, he would have gotten the kind of funding he got this year in
previous years. This means he’s expendable.
You see, if he publicizes the fact that HE and THE MAYOR and another CITY
COUNCILMAN worked together behind the scenes and had a meeting in private---and
a meeting of this kind would be in violation of Indiana Open Door laws --- this
proves COLLUSION. Collusion is a big
no-no. It’s often an indicator and prelude of anti-trust violations. If what Tom Didier is saying is even remotely
true, the Henry administration and its department heads , its appointees, and
its favored business partners could ALL be in a WOOOOORLD of hurt. Politically,
anyone who gave money to the Henry campaign and/or has been funded by the Henry
campaign and/or has otherwise benefitted from Henry being in office (City’s
department heads and other favored city employees, like the Public Safety
Director and Public Safety Director’s grant writer) could all find themselves
suspect.
Of course, this is all premised on Didier telling the truth,
which if you believe him (and I do)--then by default, you have to believe that
Henry is not telling the truth.
So it really comes down to is Henry telling the truth? Personally, I don’t believe so in this
matter. I’ve stated that before.
And here’s why – Henry sat on several of the city union
contracts that had been ratified for months before presenting them to City
Council. Why would the Mayor do
that? Why not push those contracts
through before there was any talk of an “collective bargaining termination”? City union contract negotiations began as
early as June 2013, with their contracts expiring December, 2013. Why wait??? Matter of fact, the employees of the Parks
Department ended up having to sue the Mayor and his administration for contractual
non-compliance of their union contract. [3]
Now, don’t get me wrong.
Henry is pro-union. He needs
those union workers to call bank for him and those he supports. He needs those union workers to take their
days off (with and without pay) to go canvassing for him and those he
supports. But most importantly, he needs
those union workers to vote for him.
There are more non-city worker unions (private sector) than there are
city worker unions (public sector). Henry—whether he is truly pro-union or
not---has to have the appearance of being pro-union. His campaign is heavily dependent on paid
city workers and volunteer union workers.
So Henry is being sincere and technically truthful when he says, during
an election year, that no one is more dedicated to union workers than he
is.
No matter what his own union beliefs are or were, Henry was
going to do whatever he could to have the appearance of him being a pro-union
Mayor. Yes, he vetoed the collective
bargaining termination ordinance. But he
knew his veto was going to be overturned along party lines. He relied on the 6 Republicans, which
included Tom Didier and Marty Bender whom he met with—in violation of Open Door
laws---as well as the authors of the legislation, John Crawford and Russ
Jehl. Behind the scenes, Mitch Harper
has been funded by the same people that fund Henry as has Tom Smith---they are
part of the “old boys network.” Henry
needed the Republican vote locked in so he could have his cake (terminate
collective bargaining) and eat it too (not have the appearance of supporting
collective bargaining termination).
Now, I don’t know when “the meeting” took place. But, what I do know is that Henry needed all six
of the Republican votes locked in by the time of his veto. The best way of guaranteeing that “lock in”
was by having those votes secured right from the get go. Its very hard for a politician to change
their vote once its locked in—otherwise, they come off looking like an
indecisive “flip-flopper.”
Because I don’t know when the meeting between Henry, Didier
and Bender took place, I’m going to do something that I seldom do. I’m going to share my own theory on what may
have happened. It is nothing more than a
theory because I was not at that meeting in question. I don’t know when that meeting took place
(date and time), where the meeting took place, for how long the meeting lasted,
etc. These are details and questions the
media should be asking.
AGAIN, THE FOLLOWING IS JUST A THEORY….all we know is that a
meeting took place between Henry, Didier and Bender:
Before this meeting, despite all appearances that the Republican
vote was locked in---it wasn’t. Behind-the-scenes,
Tom Didier was waivering. Didier could
have abstained. He readily admitted that
he did not know that much about unions.
Worse, his wife at that time was working at the local union print shop---Lincoln
Printing. A vote for the termination of
collective bargaining could have made life for his wife unpleasant and possibly
his home life less than stellar. Didier’s
constituents were at best divided on the issue.
Matter of fact, union workers had been out in his district canvassing
neighborhoods getting signatures on petitions, raising support and emotions. He was a Republican in an area with enough
Democrats to turn the area back over to a Democrat. Didier was in a tough spot, caught between
party lines and divided constituents a year before his bid for Mayor or for
re-election to City Council.
Didier was also a family man. So-called “union supporters” had been calling
his home, threatening him and his family.
Was this to turn Didier off to unions?
Was this to try to get Didier to change his mind? The ambiguous nature of a threat can be lost
on those being threatened. And this is
all the more reason that Didier could have and should have abstained. As a man whose family was being threatened
and harassed, that would have been a reasonable and fair choice.
Henry couldn’t have that.
Not if he was going to keep his “I support the unions” record
spotless. He needed six guaranteed votes
to overturn his Mayoral veto. He couldn’t get them from the Democratic
minority. He had to have all six
Republicans. If Didier abstained, then
the veto wouldn’t be overturned. Henry
needed that veto more than Didier “needed” collective bargaining to be
eliminated.
Henry organized a meeting with his Chief Deputy (and Didier’s
fellow councilman) and Didier to explain why the unions weren’t needed (to
educate Didier and make him feel good about his vote), to explore what Didier might
need for campaign purposes (as part of casual conversation, not in a direct way,
but rather indirectly to find out what “carrot” could be used to motivate
Didier), to help him understand how this was a difficult choice for Bender
(whether it was or not—Didier needed to feel as though he wasn’t the only one
having doubts on the subject—and who better than a member of the police
department who has a public safety union), and to find the area of compromise
that Didier could support but in a way that would reach Henry’s goals (or
rather the goals of those funding Henry).
And this is partially what I believe led to the birth of
collective bargaining termination for all union workers except for the public
safety unions. By or before this time, I’m
guessing Russ Jehl was started to back-pedal on his anti-union position. He, too, was under a lot of pressure in a
district that went back and forth between Republicans and Democrats. He too also had family who were part of city
unions. This is why we started to see
the original author, John Crawford, take the reigns back from his “co-author”
Jehl, who was really nothing more than a co-signer and re-establish his lead on
the matter.
The compromise with Didier and Jehl saved the public safety
unions. This eliminated some stress for
both of these two councilmen. To make
the deal “sweeter”, both were probably promised (but not guaranteed) campaign
donations and limited campaign competition.
Both were likely promised no Primary election competition and little if
any General election competition. This
would have the effect of sweetening the deal for these candidates and making
these races less expensive to run, meaning less campaign donations would be
needed. Because Jehl was likely easier
to convince than Didier—a once-upon-a-time Mayoral hopeful and the only
Republican to ever beat Henry in an election – Henry made good on the deal with
Jehl as it concerned the Primary. He
would have made good on his deal in the General election too, but he had reason
to believe that a potential candidate would emerge to challenge Jehl. Someone the establishment couldn’t
control. So a non-union Democrat was put
up, not to compete against Jehl, but to thwart anyone else running in the
Democratic primary. Michelle Merritt was
the put up candidate. If Michelle Hill
had not entered the race, then Merritt would have voluntarily withdrawn or not
been given any of the promised Party resources she is getting. Her campaign would have been sabotaged. The Party could have put up a second
candidate to further dilute Hill’s votes, but that would have cost more money
and it would have impacted Merritt more than Hill due to Hill’s being at the
top of the ballot. If Merrit gets
through the primary, then she is going to be in for one surprisingly rude wake
up when nearly all Party suddenly dries up.
Her General election race will undoubtedly get sabotaged.
Henry made good on his deal with Didier by making sure that
no Democrats were put up in the Democratic primary. Henry (and Didier) had reason to believe that
a potential Democratic candidate would come forward in that race. So, Henry put up a candidate—again, not to
compete against Didier, but to thwart the other Democratic challenger. When the anticipated Democratic challenger
never emerged in the 3rd District race, the put-up candidate, Pamela
Downs, voluntarily withdrew from the race.
[4] Pamela Downs is a Green Frog employee, who may be a relative of Andy
Downs. Henry, however, did not make good
on the deal that Didier would not have a primary challenger. Didier was becoming too much of a free
thinker. He needed to be taught a
lesson. He needed to be made dependent
upon his own political party. A
competitive challenger with city union ties and a legitimate gripe was put up,
Mark Stafford. How do we know that
Stafford is also a put up? Because if he
wasn’t, then another challenger would have also been put up to split the
anti-Didier votes.
My theory, of course, admittedly begs the question of
why? What would Henry have to gain by
terminating collective bargaining? Some
of you are thinking “Gina—You said so yourself, Henry needs the union workers
for his election. He’s not going to mess
that up.” These are legitimate
questions and I promise I will answer those before the Primary election.
Some of you are also thinking, “Gina – You are biased
against Henry. You have an ax to grind. Why
should we take anything you’ve shared seriously?” These too are legitimate questions. Yes, it may seem as though I am biased
against Henry. It’s not Henry that I am biased
against, it’s his policies that I am against.
No, I have no ax to grind with Henry, the individual. Yes, I have an ax to grind with Henry, the
Mayor. Again, I don’t like his
policies. Why should anyone take what I’ve
shared seriously? Because with very few occasions, I tend to share nothing but
facts that can be backed up with documentation.
I’ve backed up the parts of my theory that could be backed up with
documentation. But because I wasn’t at
the meeting in question, there is simply no way for me to have
documentation. That is why I purposefully
refer to the undocumented events as theory.
At the end of the day, what is important is that folks
realize that Henry was working in conjunction with the Republicans in
terminating collective bargaining.
--------
SOURCES: