Digital billboards under glare of ethics concerns in Indy

A proposal to bring the bright lights of digital billboards to Indianapolis is flickering under a glare of scrutiny.

The controversy has put a committee of the City-County Council under fire for trying to fast-track an ordinance written by the very industry it's supposed to regulate.

In the process, council members bypassed the city's own planning staff, which had planned to review the ordinance in a few months anyway. And, even as the proposal was being ushered through, the industry's lobbyists doled out thousands of dollars to council leaders, including committee Chairman LeRoy Robinson.

Industry representatives defend the route they took, saying city staffers for three years have declined to review the ordinance. And, they insist, the proposal won't enact a new law — it merely directs the Metropolitan Development Commission to consider it.

Neighborhood groups, though, say the public was shut out until the eleventh hour, allowing them little chance to weigh in until the proposal had already cleared the committee level.

The plan is on hold for now — and ultimately, the committee's haste may have killed the measure's chances for passage. Even some members who initially supported the concept say the route it traveled has looked so inappropriate that the legislation would be dead on arrival if it ever returned to the full council for a vote.

While a coalition of 37 neighborhood groups opposed to digital billboards appear to have beaten back the proposal, a government watchdog group said the process raises red flags about government accountability.

And some residents are still incensed at how it all went down.

"The layers of absurdity just pile on top of each other," said David Hittle, the land use chair of the Near Eastside Community Organization. "The billboard industry is writing the regulations that would regulate the billboard industry."

'It doesn't pass the smell test'

The path of Proposition 250, which seeks to reverse a ban on digital billboards in Marion County, might not look out of place at the Statehouse, where interest groups routinely draft legislation and court sponsors. But at the local level, it's not only uncommon — it's in some ways the exact opposite of how the process typically works.

Normally, major changes to the city planning and zoning ordinances would be crafted at the Department of Metropolitan Development staff level, move to the Metropolitan Development Commission and then end at the council for an up or down vote.

This time, the City-County Council started the process with a resolution asking the commission to consider the changes. And, rather than give industry groups one of several seats at the table while planners write the first draft, city staff would only look at it after the council has given its stamp of approval to the wording the industry wants.

Neighborhood groups fear this will put political pressure on city planners to use language favorable to the industry, rather than considering what's best for the city.

"To upend the process and have the industry initiate it and drive it is clearly going to draw suspicion from the public, and rightly so," said Julia Vaughn, policy director of Common Cause Indiana, a government accountability group.

"It clearly doesn't pass the smell test."

At this point, the process has overshadowed the proposal itself, rendering a healthy debate of policy almost impossible. At an hours-long committee hearing in January, much of the time was spent airing grievances about transparency, though both sides did weigh in on the merits of the billboards themselves.

The industry wants to be allowed to modernize, swapping out old static billboards for new digital signage that can rotate through multiple ads at once. Residents complain they would look tacky and worry that the brightly colored, animated signs will distract drivers.

But their biggest concern is the industry's proposed swap-out ratio. Other cities have dangled digital billboards as leverage to coax companies into taking down old, dilapidated signs — with ratios as high as 21 to 1.

Because current law doesn't allow electronic billboards at all, opponents believe Indianapolis should try to extract the highest ratio possible to reduce urban blight. But as proposed, the companies would only take down two billboards for each digital one they install.

Despite the opposition, many council members say they're open to the concept if the particulars can be worked out — and cooler heads given time to prevail. One major selling point is it would provide a new venue for the sheriff's office to post amber alerts and wanted posters.

Campaign dollars questioned

Near the end of the January meeting of the Metropolitan and Economic Development committee, one resident asked if committee members would disclose whether they had received campaign contributions from the billboard industry or its lobbyists.

Councilman Zach Adamson raised his hand and said he had. The committee chairman, Councilman Robinson, declined to do the same.

"I think all of our campaign reports are public information, so that does not need to be answered here," Robinson replied.

A subsequent Indianapolis Star review of campaign finance reports found that lobbyists employed by the industry gave extensively to council members on both sides of the aisle last year. The bulk of the recipients fell into one of three categories: council members that worked with industry officials on the proposal, party leadership or members of the committee where the legislation was being vetted.

The lobbyists work for Bose Public Affairs Group, Barnes and Thornburg, and Ice Miller — a veritable who's who of the largest lobbying or law firms in the city.

Bose and its lobbyists, who wrote the billboard proposal, gave the most — $9,637. The firm initially referred questions regarding the proposal to its client, Lamar Advertising. A Bose spokeswoman did not return calls last week seeking comment regarding the contributions.

The three firms represent a wide variety of interests, including businesses, trade associations and even the city itself, making an exclusive link to the billboard industry difficult to establish. But contributions surged as the billboard vote approached.

From 2011 to 2013, firms and individuals registered as lobbyists for the three major billboard companies gave $8,875. That time period includes an election year, when fundraising typically peaks. In 2014 alone, lobbyists gave $12,037.

That year, Robinson received the most of any council member — and all of it came after the proposal was placed in his committee.

He reported $4,000 in contributions, including a $2,650 in-kind donation from Bose to throw him a fundraiser in November, when his committee approved the proposal. That month, he reported $8,200 raised, but it is unclear how much was generated by the fundraiser itself.

In an email response to questions from The Star, Robinson denied any link, saying none of the lobbyists worked directly with him on the billboard proposal.

"I played no role in reviewing, creating, or drafting of the proposal and never saw the completed proposal until it was introduced to the full council," wrote Robinson, a Democrat. "My campaign finance report is a public document and I receive contributions from a variety of individuals and entities, many of which are long time personal friends of mine, personal friends for many years, prior to me holding this elected office or being chairman of this committee."

Four other council members received more than $1,000 from the industry's lobbyists last year. Council President Maggie Lewis, a Democrat, received $2,237; Republican Minority Leader Michael McQuillen received $2,200, while Minority Whip Marilyn Pfisterer received $1,000.

Adamson, a Democrat, received $1,100, some of which was reported in November. But he said the timing was a coincidence — a friend threw him a fundraiser that month.

"People I think are inherently suspicious when they see a trail of money coming from some place," Adamson said. "The fact of the matter is, elections cost money. ... So the question is, do you say, 'no, sorry, I can't take this?'"

Adamson and Pfisterer both said they would prefer for the proposal to go through the typical planning process, anyway, because of the concerns raised. Lewis and McQuillen said none of their donors contacted them regarding the proposal, with Lewis adding that she keeps contributors at arm's length.

"My treasurer and advisors accept all money directly, in an attempt to eliminate the appearance that I'm being persuaded financially," Lewis wrote in an email.

McQuillen suggested the contributions could be something for the council's Ethics Committee to investigate.

A 'poisoned' process

Council members say officials with three major billboard companies — Lamar Advertising, Clear Channel and Outfront Media — began discussing the proposal as early as 2012.

That year, the Department of Metropolitan Development was kicking off Indy Rezone, a multi-year effort to overhaul the city's zoning laws. But, apparently wanting to avoid bogging the process down in a controversial topic, the sign ordinance was set aside until the Indy Rezone was complete.

That left the industry with few options: convince the council to push the issue forward, or wait until Indy Rezone was done.

"We went to the process that is available," said Chris Iversen, vice president and general manager of Lamar Advertising. "This was after fact-finding missions — we talked to councilors, we talked to staff, we looked at other ordinances, and we even reached out to neighborhood groups."

In August 2014, a measure was introduced to the full council, but it didn't do much. The original resolution, sponsored by Mary Moriarty Adams, merely directed the commission to take a look at digital billboards. But in November, the proposal had an attachment — an ordinance, drafted by Lamar lobbyist Bose Public Affairs Group, rewriting the city sign laws to the industry's specifications.

"There weren't all these clandestine meetings, that I'm aware of," said Councilman Jeff Miller, a Republican who has pushed for the proposal to be killed and sent through the normal planning process. "I think everything was done right — until November.

"At that point, the well was so poisoned in the process that it's gotta have a major, major reset," he said.

Meanwhile, DMD Director Adam Thies told Miller and other council members that his staff would go through a full review of the sign ordinance, with extensive public input, once Indy Rezone is complete. He wrote in an email to Miller that a final product would be ready in March.

The sponsor Adams, a Democrat, did not respond to requests for comment. But to many of her colleagues, the solution seems obvious — kill the proposal, and let the planning staff take the wheel in a few months.

"It's difficult for both sides to come to the table and trust each other," Adamson said. Even though he believes it could benefit his area by removing old billboards, "I have not had a single constituent say this was a positive thing, and I have gotten literally hundreds of communications on this issue.

"There is real hatred — and I think probably the process has done that more than anything."

Call Star reporter Brian Eason at (317) 444-6129. Follow him on Twitter: @brianeason.