If These Complaints Are “Frivolous,” Then South Bend’s Laws Are Frivolous
- Logan Foster
- 1 hour ago
- 4 min read
If a law exists, it either applies or it does not.
Mayor James Mueller described the City’s view of compliance in a televised WSBT interview when asked whether South Bend would follow federal immigration law.
“We’re a nation of laws. We’re a city of laws and a county of laws. And we abide by all state, federal laws.”“We may not agree with every law that’s on the books, but if you don’t agree with it, you got to change it through the legislature. You don’t just decide to say this law doesn’t apply.”
Those statements conflict with how South Bend has treated its own ordinances. South Bend residents filed complaints based on laws already on the books. The City acknowledged those laws, dismissed the complaints as “frivolous” and “meritless,” and has since moved to eliminate the process residents used to file them, citing the volume of complaints rather than any defect in the laws themselves.
If that label is accurate, it does not describe the residents. It describes the laws.
A rule on the books, and a decision not to apply it
One complaint alleged that a council member violated the Municipal Code by using a cell phone during a council meeting.
The Rules Committee minutes summarize the allegation.
“Attorney Palmer stated that the complaint alleges a Councilmember violated the Municipal Code by looking at a cell phone during the Privilege of the Floor section of a council meeting.”
The rule at issue is part of the Common Council procedures ordinance signed into law by Mayor James Mueller.
“Council Members and citizen members of any Standing Committee may not send, view or listen to any electronic message communications while a Council or citizen member is part of the quorum for such meeting or while such meeting is in progress.”
During discussion, one member acknowledged the conduct was common.
“Committee Member Troy Warner stated that this is a frivolous and targetted complaint, as during the meeting in question multiple Councilmembers can be seen using their cell phones.”
That statement does not dispute the allegation. It concedes it.
The City Attorney confirmed the rule’s status.
“Attorney Palmer stated that the ordinance still remains in effect.”
The committee dismissed the complaint anyway.
“Committee Member Tomas Morgan moved to dismiss the complaint, which was seconded by Committee Member Warner and carried by a vote of three (3) ayes.”
Calling that complaint frivolous requires ignoring a law the City admits remains in effect.
Residency requirements, evidence, and dismissal
Another complaint questioned whether Sharon McBride continued to live in the district she represents, a requirement imposed by both Indiana law and South Bend’s Municipal Code.
City law requires a council member to reside in the district for at least six months before election and to continue residing there throughout the term. If a member no longer resides in the district, the Municipal Code provides that the seat is forfeited.
Residents submitted documented evidence to the Rules Committee, including rent payment records, utility bills, and address documentation bearing directly on McBride’s residency. At the same time, the residency question was under investigation by the Indiana State Police and a civil suit.
The committee acknowledged related litigation.
“Committee Member Tomas Morgan stated that there is ongoing litigation regarding the residency status discussed in the complaint.”
Despite having evidence before it and knowing the issue was under active investigation, the Rules Committee chose dismissal rather than deferral or a public hearing.
The residency requirement was not disputed. The evidence was not adjudicated. The complaint was dismissed.
An animal welfare law, and what happened to it
A third complaint relied on South Bend Municipal Code Section 5-77.
“A puppy or kitten must be at least ten (10) weeks old and weaned before it may be offered for sale, traded, or given away.”
That ordinance was passed by the Common Council and signed into law in 2019 by Mayor Peter Buttigieg.
The complaint cited public social media posts advertising puppies well below the minimum age.
“we now have 3 four week old puppies that will be looking for a forever home soon. $1500 per puppy.”
Subsequent posts showed fewer puppies available, indicating that puppies advertised at four weeks old were being sold or transferred.
The City’s animal welfare division logged the matter as an enforcement case and reiterated the ten-week requirement in writing. No City document describes the complaint as frivolous.
The law existed. The age was stated publicly. The number of puppies offered declined. The complaint was dismissed anyway. And Rules Committee members still classified the ordinance violation as "frivolous."
A dismissal that could not legally stand
The most serious breakdown involved a misconduct complaint against Council Vice President Sheila Niezgodski.
An initial complaint was dismissed in executive session. According to the Council’s own attorney, the Rules Committee met, deliberated, and voted unanimously in executive session.
Indiana law does not permit governing bodies to take final action in executive session.
For that reason, the complaint was refiled.
“This communication confirms that the Rules Committee took a final action, dismissal, during a non-public executive session.”
“Accordingly, the prior dismissal should be void as a matter of law and does not bar refiling or further review.”
There has never been a lawful public decision on the merits of that complaint.
A secret deliberation and vote does not render a complaint meritless.
It renders the process unlawful.
The response was to target the process
After dismissing complaints based on ordinances signed by two different mayors and after violating Indiana’s Open Door Law, Council leadership introduced legislation to repeal the City’s complaint process. The proposal has not yet been adopted.
The stated justification is blunt.
“The proliferation of frivolous, meritless, repetitive, and legally incorrect complaints has resulted in an inordinate amount of time devoted to resolving such complaints.”
The proposed remedy is elimination.
“This ordinance repeals, supersedes and replaces Chapter 2, Article 1, Section 2-10.1 in its entirety.”
A simple conclusion
A frivolous complaint has no law behind it. These complaints relied on ordinances signed by mayors. A frivolous complaint has no factual grounding. These complaints relied on admissions and public records. A frivolous complaint is dismissed lawfully. One complaint was dismissed unlawfully.
What South Bend has labeled frivolous is residents insisting that City Hall follow the laws City Hall itself enacted.
If these complaints are frivolous, then South Bend’s laws are frivolous.