• Mitch Harper, editor [contact via email]

    Original content, commentary and analysis © 2005 - 2016 Fort Wayne Observed

    Banner photo © Everett White. Used by permission, all rights reserved.
My Photo


  • Fort Wayne Observed welcomes reader comments as a way to facilitate discussion and debate.

    In order to leave a comment, you must also leave your full name and a working email address in the event Fort Wayne Observed contacts you for confirmation. You may request that your email address not be published when your comment is posted.

    Anonymous comments or those that include coarse language or personal attacks will not be tolerated.


Your Take

Indiana Blogs


  • eXTReMe Tracker

Become a Fan

« What's for lunch? Phil GiaQuinta's favorite | Main | West of Zulu and east of Dunfee »


Scott Spaulding

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain; we're supposed to be focusing on "the real issues"

Heather Schoegler

Why do you need an attorney if you have done nothing wrong? Especially an attorney of his caliber.

Paul Morrison

Example: You're accused of cheating on your taxes and know you have done nothing wrong. Would you defend yourself? Perhaps hire the first tax attorney you find in the yellow pages? I think NOT! Hiring the best (Mr. Bopp) allows the “Kelty for Mayor” campaign to concentrate on doing what we do best... focus on "the real issues" that matter to the citizens of Ft. Wayne.

Vince Robinson

Like the "who-paid-for-the-poll" controversy that preceeded this mess, will Mr. Kelty ever come to the conclusion at some point that it's okay to give the true, complete story upfront - before he needs to hire a lawyer? I'd like to think that he is in support of transparency in government, if he's elected. Let's see some transparency in his campaign.

Dan Turkette


I hope all is well with you.

Mr. Kelty, based on advice from his legal counsel assumed the reports were prepared within compliance of election laws.

As far as hiring a lawyer goes, let's say you and your wife get in a spat. You never touch her but she's aware that if she calls the authorities and says you attacked her you'll most likely get arrested. I highly doubt you would walk into a hearing regarding same without legal counsel. The local main stream media has already crucified Matt lacking any evidence to back it up.

Matt is a good person and I can attest to that. I think you can as well. The only downside I've ever heard *anyone* say about Matt is that he seems to exhibit too much enthusiasm. Is that a bad thing? I think not.

It's time for a change from the old guard in Fort Wayne and there are far too many people quaking in their collective boots over that thought.

Dan Turkette

Craig Ladwig

In some movie that Vince has seen, all people are treated fairly, motivations are never questioned and honesty abounds. The Kelty campaign, whatever you might think of its issues, understands that this is a real-life war of ideas and is acting accordingly.

Gary Schepp

Dan Turkette,

The only Old Guard are the Republicans. From Beers to Shine. From Rousseau led Commissioners to another Republican controlled Commissioner office.

As for legal representation... Was Mr Bopp the attorney that advised him that he filed the campaign documents legally? If not, where are those attorneys? Does Mr Kelty have doubts about properly filing the papers that he had to find another attorney? Maybe he doesn't have doubts and knew what he did was a violation of state law.

If the $150,000 plus are loans and the parties loaning the money expect to be paid back... How will Kelty pay them back? Does Kelty have the financial capability to repay the loan back when the campaign is over? Or is there going to be a quid pro quo business arrangement? Doesn't that suggest that Kelty's campaign is on shakey financial legs?

If the parties were not trying to hide anything and are being honest then why did they hide the true arrangement of the loan? Pat Miller's explanation that the purpose of the lie was to invigorate the Kelty supporters so that they would go out to vote. Doesn't wash! The loan arrangement is dated 12/27 for $148,000. That is over 4 months before the election. Too much time before the election to maintain the energy level.

At this time the Kelty campaign is damaged goods.

Vince Robinson

In response to Dan Turkette:

As you know, I, too, think Matt is a good person. I just question whether he's getting some bad advice concerning disclosure issues. After running an otherwise brilliant campaign, he has stumbled three times now (by my count) by either stonewalling or (intentionally or unintentionally) confusing details about his campaign or his resume. In all cases, the fully disclosed details weren't at all damaging to his campaign - but the apparent lack of transparency was harmful.

It also raises questions about how Matt will execute the principle of transparency in government, if elected. If ever there was a hallmark of the "old guard," it's the idea that the public doesn't need to know the truth or the full details - "just trust me - I know what you need to know and what you don't." Wasn't that one of the major complaints about Harrison Square - a project that Matt opposes, in part, due to the alledged lack of disclosure?

Bottom line, Matt is in the big leagues now. My friend Craig Ladwig's response to me, while somewhat silly and unnecessarily condesending toward me, is worth noting, if only ironically, because it does contain some truths for the Kelty campaign. With his own party's organization wavering (at best) in its support for him, it is Matt who must realize that this is a war of ideas - and that the mainstream media would love to paint him as a typical, bend-the-truth, say-anything to-get-elected politician. If Matt's going to continue to be credible as a new-way-of-doing-business candidate, he can't resort to distortions and half-truths - even well-intentioned ones.

Be well, Dan.

Craig Ladwig

Vince: My apology; the snip was unnecessarily condescending. Your subsequent comments are well put and on point.

Vince Robinson

To Craig:

It's all good.


Dan Turkette


Well put with one exception. You sounded like Pat White when you stated "confusing details about his campaign or his resume".

There is nothing confusing about Matt's resume. Isn't coach Faust's testimony on Charlie Butcher's show enough proof or does it require a movie to be made before you'd believe that was he indeed a walk-on?

As for "his own party's organization wavering (at best)".. all I can say is right now, it's a sad time to be a Republican in Allen County Indiana. The old guard members of the party need to get over the fact he won and move forward.


Vince Robinson

Hi Dan,

It really wasn't my intent to dredge this up again, but since you brought it up... Without a doubt Coach Faust's call to WOWO was intended to be supportive of Matt Kelty. No matter what you think about him as a candidate, Matt is a genuinely nice guy, and Faust clearly thought the same of Matt when he attended Notre Dame. "He's a class act young man," Faust said.

But to suggest that Coach Faust's comments were definitive is simply wrong. The words, "Yes. Matt Kelty was a walk-on," never came out of Coach Faust's mouth - not unless there is additional tape that did not air. The reason he never said that is because Matt didn't make the team. Regarding Matt's status, Faust said Kelty was one of three would-be punters who tried out, but the Fighting Irish - and I quote here -"didn't keep any of them." Those are the coach's words, not mine. Coach went on to say of Matt: "We found that under pressure, none of them (Matt and the other two hopefuls) were up to the capabilities of what we needed." Even Matt himself has clarified his actual status with the team. He participated in some spring practices. And Faust did back that up. But Matt simply never was a Notre Dame football player. He tried out, and according to Coach Faust, the team didn't keep him. As far as the real walk-on player - according to Faust, and again, I quote - "We finally recruited from high school..."

Dan, I respect your support of Matt and your passion for his campaign, but he's not helped by revisionist history. As I said before, Matt's in the big leagues now. He's under the microscope and he needs to avoid the kind of miscues and fuzzy positions that make him look less than straightforward. There's too much at stake to be tripped up by this kind of otherwise trivial stuff.

Peace out.


The comments to this entry are closed.