Logan Foster Redress South Bend

08/14/2025

City of South Bend is in the news again, but not for our achievements. Anyone think Jon Gruden should have a few words with Mueller? 😂

08/14/2025

Tomorrow morning - City of South Bend - Municipal Government will be providing Motels4Now another $4 MILLION Dollars.

Yet, South Bend Common Council member Rachel Tomas Morgan lectures us on fiscal responsibility.

08/12/2025

In 2023, City of South Bend allocated over $3 million toward homeless initiatives.

Fast forward to 2025, and a preliminary review reveals that approximately $2 million has already been spent solely on the Motels 4 Now program. (The figures pictured below does not include the nearly $1.12 million spent earlier this year on property acquisition for Motels 4 Now or the future demolition costs that will inevitably arise from this project, and funds provided to Motels 4 Now for fence repairs and security camera installation)

Despite this, Rachel Tomas Morgan South Bend Common Council of the South Bend Common Council claims to champion fiscal responsibility, using it as a justification for requiring taxpayers to cover the cost of body camera footage. Yet, Ms. Morgan supports the Motels 4 Now program and the significant financial burden it places on taxpayers. Her actions suggest a disregard for true fiscal responsibility, prioritizing her own interests over those of the community.

08/12/2025

Last night, South Bend Common Council member Sharon McBride suggested that the lack of public support for the $150 fee was due to “fear of being bullied.”

Bullied By whom? McBride didn’t say. Though one might wonder if she was thinking of the occasional… spirited times where Councilwoman Niezgodski gets physical with those who speak out against fraud and corruption.

Of course, we can only speculate. And speculation, as we know, is free. 🤷‍♂️ unlike the fees Sharon McBride and the 6 other Council Members just voted for.

08/12/2025

They want to hear from us? Yet every member of the public shared opposition to 43-25 and they told us they would vote for it anyway. Troy Warner, Rachel Tomas Morgan South Bend Common Council, Canneth Lee, and Ophelia Rodgers voted to not allow public comments on bill 43-25 last night, but they claim they want to hear from us? That’s appalling!

Please click the link to complete this form.

08/12/2025

08/11/25 Privilege of the Floor

08/12/2025

08/11/25 Comments against ordinance 43-25

08/10/2025

From: South Bend Common Council member (District 5) Sherry Bolden-Simpson
Re: My opposition to Bill 43-25
Statement in Opposition to Bill 43-25

I oppose Bill 43-25 for three key reasons.

First – The bill was introduced in a confusing manner. It was initially framed as a workload issue, with emphasis on the time-consuming nature of video redaction. The legal department stated that its staff were overwhelmed by these duties. However, I later learned that the fees generated by this ordinance would not go to the legal department at all, raising serious questions about the bill’s stated purpose.

Second – The ordinance is not supported by data. City legal has claimed that the proposed fees would encourage people requesting bodycam and dashcam videos to narrow their requests, thereby reducing workload. No data has been provided to support this assumption. In reality, the fees would likely be prohibitive for the average citizen, but not for media outlets, law enforcement agencies, insurance companies, or large advocacy organizations. These groups will continue to request and pay for videos, meaning the workload for the legal department will remain unchanged.

Third – And most importantly, this bill risks damaging public trust between citizens and the South Bend Police Department. There are unanswered questions about who decides whether a person qualifies as a “requester” under state statute, and how appeals would work if a request is denied. The bill does not address situations where a victim wants to view a video but avoid interaction with law enforcement. City legal has not established where such videos would be viewed or who would supervise the process.

The state statute allowing municipalities to assess fees on police videos has been in place since 2016 and municipalities are not mandated to establish a fee schedule. South Bend is not out of compliance, so there is no reason to rush this ordinance through without fully studying its impacts in other communities. Our city is not obligated to follow St. Joseph County or any neighboring government; we should make decisions based on the needs and trust of our own residents.

In recent years, South Bend has made gradual progress in rebuilding trust between citizens and SBPD. Passing Bill 43-25 would set that progress back—potentially erasing years of work. That would harm our citizens, our police department, and our city.

For these reasons, I oppose Bill 43-25.

08/10/2025

Councilman Davis,

Thank you for the information here and that you have provided to me previously. I have reviewed your research, the precedence in other municipalities, and the proposed Ordinance. I have concluded that I agree with your position. I do not believe this Ordinance in its current form is correct for our community at this time, and I would hope to see it amended or tabled due to the barrier it would create for most residents seeking transparency.

That this ordinance will create a barrier to access for many is without question. And on one hand, as an executive responsible for the conduct and operations of a government office, I can certainly understand the position of the City Administration. Attempting to meet every casual request made in seemingly bad faith and without a justified reason potentially presents an unnecessary burden on limited resources. But "justification" is in the eye of the beholder. What one finds wasteful and unnecessary, may be deemed as prudent and important to another. This leads to the dangerous philosophical question - Who gets to make that determination? Perhaps for this reason alone, this ordinance should be tabled.

As a government institution, there can be no greater cause than that which seeks to instill faith and trust between government and residents. As a Township Trustee who has daily interactions with residents, it takes constant, consistent effort to build and maintain that trust with progress often made through intentional effort. A commitment to transparency is a key component in building, maintaining, and growing that trust. But, transparency is not always going to be easy. We have many examples of governments already making some of those intentional efforts such as the creation of public portals for instant access to various government documents, public bidding requirements, etc. Those intentional efforts at transparency come at a cost, but I believe those costs to be worthwhile as they pay dividends in the form of greater community trust. I don't see how this issue should be any different.

Additionally, the topic of policing is historically one of high interest, emotion, and generational trauma. I have to believe that a commitment to transparency will create better interactions and relationships between police officers and residents, as both should be seeking to serve each other. I also believe that police officers and residents have the right to hold each other accountable. The lack of barriers to access of footage is a key component to progress on that front.

It is a delicate balance between responsible operations and meeting the expectations of the public, which includes transparency for the sake of trust. I fear that measures such as this are a step in the wrong direction as they create barriers tipping the scales in a regressive direction.

Thank you for your engagement on this issue!

Jason Critchlow

https://www.redresssouthbend.com/post/jason-critchlow-s-response-to-oliver-davis-regarding-south-bend-common-council-bill-no-43-25
--------

Earlier this afternoon, Portage Township Trustee Jason Critchlow sent the following in response to an email Dr. Oliver Davis sent last week. The email can be viewed hereCouncilman Davis,Thank you for the information here and that you have provided to me previously. I have reviewed your research, the...

08/08/2025

The South Bend Common Council expects to vote Monday night on a bill creating new fees, up to $150, for police dash and body cam videos that people request under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act.

08/08/2025

Response from Oliver Davis Regarding South Bend Common Council Bill No. 43-25
--
South Bend Common Council Bill No. 43-25, which raises fees for access to police body camera footage up to $150 per recording, has generated significant conversation in the media, online and during council meetings. Bill No. 43-25 is currently scheduled to be voted upon on August 11, 2025, during the South Bend Common Council meeting at 7 pm (EST). While the bill’s sponsor—the City of South Bend’s Legal Department—claims the measure is necessary due to the time and labor required to redact footage, the policy does not actually solve the underlying problem.

It is very important to note that during the three (3) public hearings that have been held on South Bend Common Council Bill No. 43-25, which raises fees for access to police body camera footage, since July 2025, not a single member of our South Bend public has voiced support for this bill. Yet every public comment that has been shared during the public hearings has been in opposition to passing this bill to raise fees on the police body cameras. As South Bend Common Council members, we are elected to represent our constituents, and it is our duty to reject this bill in favor of a solution that funds the legal department directly, without punishing the public’s right to access police accountability. It has been verified by our City of South Bend legal team that the City of South Bend has been in compliance with the state law regarding this bill since the Indiana State legislature allowed municipalities to have the option to implement this bill, HOUSE ENROLLED ACT No. 1019, during the Second Regular Session of the 119th Indiana General Assembly in 2016, nearly 10 years ago. Thus, what is the need to rush and to pass a change in our practice now after over seven (7) years of having police body cameras available to the people of South Bend?

It is important for our South Bend Public to clearly know that the revenue generated by the proposed increased fees of up to $150 per body camera video does not go to the legal department responsible for redaction, meaning the department that is reportedly overburdened receives none of the resources it needs. This important disconnect highlights a serious flaw in the bill’s design: it imposes a financial burden on the public without delivering a meaningful solution to city staffing or workload issues. Instead of placing additional financial strain on the residents of South Bend, a more practical and equitable response would be to include a dedicated line item in the City of South Bend’s 2026 budget to directly support the legal department’s redaction responsibilities, which will be voted upon in October 2025.

Furthermore, the City of South Bend’s legal department has not yet provided sufficient evidence or financial data that raising fees will reduce the number of requests, which is central to their justification for the bill. In their public testimony and in their documents which they have provided to the public, they have cited that other Indiana cities and counties have implemented similar fees, but offered no data proving a causal or correlative link between higher fees and fewer requests. Also, when the second largest city in Indiana, Fort Wayne, reviewed a similar bill in their City Council in 2023, they decided against implementing the $150 per video fee. Fort Wayne’s Mayor Sharon Tucker, who was a member of the Fort Wayne City Council expressed her concerns about raising the fees on body camera videos by sharing “I’m concerned that it would disproportionately impact those who could not afford to be able to capture all of the videos to be able to prove their case,” Mayor Tucker said that her main issue with the plan lies with its affordability - Sharon Tucker's Comments.

Additionally, the City of South Bend’s legal department’s framing of insurance companies and law firms from outside South Bend as major culprits behind excessive requests is concerning. When asked directly by a resident at an August 6, 2025 hearing about whether or not these firms and companies could represent South Bend residents, the city attorney acknowledged that those same firms may be representing South Bend residents—meaning the burden of these inflated costs will ultimately fall on local individuals, not distant outsiders. Given that the state of Indiana mandates these fees must be applied uniformly, there is no legal path to charge outsiders more than residents. That means South Bend residents could now be forced to pay over ten times the $9 fee currently in place.

Henceforth, it is very important for the South Bend Common Council to address this matter in the City of South Bend’s Budget sessions and to not burden the residents of South Bend with this additional cost.
-------------