APPEAL FROM ACTIONS OF THE CITY OF FRANKLIN

STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE JOHNSON COUNTY CIRCUIT /
COUNTY OF JOHNSON ) SUPERIOR COURTS
)
GARY W. MOODY, Plaintiff, ) CASE NO: 41D011111M100102
)
vs. )
)

CITY OF FRANKLIN, Defendant. )

APPEAL FROM ACTIONS OF THE CITY OF FRANKLIN

Comes now Gary W. Moody, plaintiff pro se, pursuant to Indiana Code 34-13-6 and I.C.
5-14-1.5, and files this petition appealing certain actions by the City of Franklin. Specifically, I
am appealing against the actions by the City of Franklin Board of Works and Public Safety
(“Board of Works”), and the City of Franklin Redevelopment Commission (“RDC”), in their
joint meeting of October 27, 2011, in approving the transfer of ownership of certain properties
owned by the City of Franklin, to the City of Franklin Redevelopment Department and/or
Redevelopment Commission. The transfer of ownership was approved by the Board of Works in
its Resolution Number 2011-03 on said date. The transfer of ownership was approved by the
RDC in its Resolution Number 2011-19 on said date. A Real Estate Transfer Agreement was also
approved by these motions, and signed on said date.

Previously, on October 20, 2011, these bodies met jointly in an executive session to
discuss this transfer of real estate. Afterward, these bodies met jointly in public. In the latter
meeting, both bodies approved resolutions identical to those passed at the later date, numbered
2011-02 by the Board of Works, and 2011-16 by the RDC. A Real Estate Transfer Agreement
was also approved and signed, also identical to the document approved and signed a week later.

Subsequently, a newspaper report contested the legality of the executive session of
October 20, as not being in compliance with the Open Door Law, and thus the legality of the

transfer of properties was also in question. Therefore, the City Attorney advised the Board of Works

and the RDC to repeat the public meeting, repeal the two resolutions and the agreement, and approve

new resolutions and an agreement. Which occurred on October 27, as described above.

The properties at issue are those described in the Real Estate Transfer Agreement, to wit, and by

their name only:

A. The Oren Wright Property
B. G.C. Murphy Property
C. Old City Hall
D. Wayne/Jackson Street Properties
This appeal is made for the following reasons:

1. The City of Franklin violated the Open Door Law in its use of an executive session on
October 20 in order for the two bodies to discuss the transfer of said City properties.

I.C. § 5-14-1.5-3 OPEN MEETINGS; SECRET BALLOT VOTES
(a) Except as provided in section 6.1 of this chapter, all meetings of the
governing bodies of public agencies must be open at all times for the purpose of
permitting members of the public to observe and record them.
I.C. § 5-14-1.5-6.1 EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
(b) Executive sessions may be held only in the following instances: ...
(2) For discussion of strategy with respect to any of the following: ...
(D) The purchase or lease of real property by the governing body up to the
time of a contract or option to purchase or lease is executed by the parties.
However, all such strategy discussions must be necessary for competitive or
bargaining reasons and may not include competitive or bargaining
adversaries.
Therefore, in meeting together to discuss these properties, the Board of Works and RDC was not

in compliance with I.C. 5-14-1.5-6.1(b)(2)(D), and therefore violated I.C. 5-14-1.5-3(a).

I.C. § 5-14-1.5-7 VIOLATIONS; REMEDIES; LIMITATIONS; COSTS AND
FEES
(a) An action may be filed by any person in any court of competent jurisdiction
to:
(3) declare void any policy, decision, or final action:
(A) taken at an executive session in violation of section 3(a) of this chapter...
(C) that is based in whole or in part upon official action taken at any:
(i) executive session in violation of section 3(a) of this chapter...

(c) If a court finds that a governing body of a public agency has violated this
chapter, it may not find that the violation was cured by the governing body by
only having taken final action at a meeting that complies with this chapter.
The City of Franklin violated the Open Door Law, as described above, in its executive session

held on October 20. That violation was not not cured by repeating the steps taken in the open meeting

of that date in an open meeting on October 27. I will show that the secret negotiations conducted by the

two parties in the illegal executive session affected the outcome of the agreements to such an extent

that the court should find that the relevant factors of public interest, as detailed in subpart (d) of the

above statute, must be considered in leading to said actions and agreements being found void.

2. These actions by the City of Franklin violate statutes controlling the transfer of real property,
and the duties and operations of the Redevelopment Commission.

IC 36-1-11-8 Exchange of property with governmental entity
Sec. 8. A transfer or exchange of property may be made with a governmental
entity upon terms and conditions agreed upon by the entities as evidenced by
adoption of a substantially identical resolution by each entity. Such a transfer
may be made for any amount of real property, cash, or other personal property,
as agreed upon by the entities.

Neither the resolutions nor the agreement state that the City is receiving anything from the RDC

in consideration for the transfer of said properties. This arrangement may have been discussed in the

illegal executive session.

IC 36-7-14-2
Declaration of public purpose; opportunities for redevelopment by private
enterprise
Sec. 2. (a) The clearance, replanning, and redevelopment of areas needing
redevelopment under this chapter are public uses and purposes for which
public money may be spent and private property may be acquired.

(b) Each unit shall, to the extent feasible under this chapter and consistent with
the needs of the unit as a whole, afford a maximum opportunity for rehabilitation
or redevelopment of areas by private enterprise.
IC 36-7-14-2.5
Economic development areas; public functions, uses, and purposes;
liberal construction
Sec. 2.5. (a) The assessment, planning, replanning, remediation, development,

and redevelopment of economic development areas:

(1) are public and governmental functions that cannot be accomplished
through the ordinary operations of private enterprise because of:
(A) the necessity for requiring the proper use of the land so as to best serve the
interests of the county and its citizens; and
(B) the costs of these projects;
(2) will:
(A) benefit the public health, safety, morals, and welfare;
IC 36-7-14-11

Duties of commission

Sec. 11. The redevelopment commission shall:

(3) promote the use of land in the manner that best serves the interests of the unit
and its inhabitants;
(4) cooperate:
(A) with the departments and agencies of:
(i) the unit; and
(ii) other governmental entities; and
(B) with:
(i) public instrumentalities; and
(ii) public corporate bodies;
created by state law; in the manner that best serves the purposes of this chapter;
The purpose of the RDC, as described in the first section above, is to acquire private property

for redevelopment. The properties involved in the actions of October 27 are public properties. The

purpose of the RDC in acquiring private property is to make it available to private enterprise. It is

widely believed, and the President of the RDC has publicly stated, that these properties may be

transferred to the Franklin Development Corporation (“FDC”). The FDC was established through the

efforts of the City Attorney, and funded entirely by public funds provided to the City of Franklin by its

taxpayers. Furthermore, the Board of Directors of the FDC includes several members of the RDC, such

as its President, Mr. Koenes, and the City Attorney is also the attorney for the FDC.

Also, the status of Old City Hall has been debated publicly for over two years. The City

Council, on August 1, 2011, resolved and recommended that Old City Hall should be placed upon the

National Register of Historic Places before transferring or selling the property. Councilman Ault

reiterated that in the meeting of October 20, as the minutes show. Therefore the RDC did not

“cooperate” with the City of Franklin Common Council as it should have done in order to live up to the
letter and spirit of the above statute.

Both the potential conflicts and potential legal issues described in the former paragraph, and the
RDC's rogue actions as described in the latter, are in fact detrimental to the “public... morals, and
welfare.” Nor do these actions, in sum, “ best serves the purposes of this chapter [IC 36-7-14].”

Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of orders voiding the actions involving transferal of real estate
of October 27, enjoining the city in future actions, and such other relief as the court may find necessary
and in the public interest, pursuant but not limited to I.C. 5-14-1.5 and IC 34-13-6. Plaintiff will submit
documentation as evidence and will contest this matter at trial as required.

I hereby verify that the foregoing is true.

I hereby certify that the foregoing document complies with the requirements of Trial Rule 5(G)
with regard to information excluded form the public record by Administrative Rule 9(G).

Respectfully submitted,

Gary W. Moody, 299 ½ W Madison St, Franklin, IN 46131 317-736-8137

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon the
following pursuant to LR41 - TR5 - 131, this 28thh day of November, 2011: City of Franklin, by City
Attorney Robert H. Schafstall.

Advertisement

Want your business listed - email us submit@columbuzz.net