Source Document–1975 January 16
|Indianapolis Star lay-out says it all: The Lugar-Daniels Shotgun Wedding, circa 1975-- now in its 38th Year. . . .|
From the Thursday, 16 January 1975 Indianapolis Star: You've heard of a "shotgun wedding"-- when one politician has to take on another politician for each others' mutual survival -- here, as the Hoosier GOP tries to get around automatic patronage deductions before its forced to do so by a judge, it comes up with a different "deduction" mechanism, which some city employees see as the same "shotgun" deduction, perhaps illustrated by the actual advertisement which ran just below the article on 16 Jan 1975. . .note Lugar "press aide" Mitchell Daniels' use of such still-hot networking terms: "peer-to-peer" and "maverick" . . .
On page 46, six columns, top right:
REPLACES PATRONAGE DEDUCTIONS
GOP Fund Drive Underway
[No by-line. Reads, in part: "Mayor Richard G. Lugar's administration yesterday officially began the GOP Public Employees Fund Drive, a device designed to replace the old 2 per cent patronage deduction from the paychecks of city employees. Fifteen persons, including department heads and most of the mayor's staff, were given the initial opportunity to pledge, a ceremony which resulted in a total annual pledge of $7,420, or almost 3 per cent of the combined annual salaries of those involved. The individual monthly amounts ranged from $30 to $50 . . . Mitchell Daniels, the mayor's press aide, remarked 'We are extremely enthusiastic about this program and expect it to be attractive because of its voluntary nature.' Pledge cards, a misnomer since employes [sic] actually will sign mimeographed sheets of paper, will be distributed to employees through their department or division supervisors next week. UniGov Department heads have been asked to draft a list of employees who should be asked to pledge, and therefore will decide who should be exempted from the program. Daniels speculated that such persons who might be exempted include those whose salaries are derived wholly from Federal funds or who are working in decidedly professional categories. "But that decision rests with the supervisor,' he emphasized. . .It is unknown how many employes [sic] will be asked to participated, but Daniels said the city hopes to raise at least $65,000 , the amount received last year from the payroll deductions. He commented that in some departments, employees traditionally have not contributed and the city hopes to get at least one-half or 1 per cent pledges by virtue of the voluntary nature of the program. He added the payroll deduction program enjoyed marginal success. . .The voluntary program will feature a 'peer-to-peer follow-up effort' in which nonsupervisory coworkers will visit the homes of employees who fail to pledge and encourage the 'maverick' to do so . . . Daniels promised that none of the follow-up consolers will threaten an employe [sic] with dismissal, nor would they be in a position to do so . . . Many city employes [sic], however, are concerned that the program, for all its pretense will be little removed from the payroll deduction system under which some workers were threatened with dismissal for failure to pay [whiteout space (red arrow)] ."]
© 2012 John Michael Vore. The news reporting utilized in Hoosier Hysterias was taken from microfilm of Indianapolis Star/News editions; use of clippings is for illustrative purposes. They are partial and incomplete so as to preserve original copyright, yet tighten credibility in writing about them in this space. Where a public document has been published anywhere, it has been reproduced in full. Other citations are noted in the text and in endnotes.
"Source Document" entries serve as support in the on-going series "Hoosier Hysterias: A Day at the Races"--essays of news analysis designated with "Hoosier Hysterias" in their title. Breaking down news into day published, story and reporter allows for better corroboration/collaboration by anyone who has information related to contemporary reporting of events and/or their latter day repercussions– and separates it from the analyses of events, which belong solely to the author.