With the road closures, Lilly proposes we let them take over our roads on the basis of their judgment and word that this is the best thing for the community. Otherwise, they would have no legitimate reason to ask the Commissioners to vacate the roads. This is our [Hancock County] community property that we put to good use every day. And we should have some pretty good reasons for giving that up.

Lilly's Ground

Lilly has brought many benefits to our community - that is not what's in contest here. What is in contest are the benefits versus the consequences their current proposal will bring to/inflict on our entire community. The most common benefits Lilly and their supporters list include lower taxes, philanthropy, more jobs and greater security (surrounding their complex). And the only clear rational we've heard from Lilly for this proposal is in vague reference to 9/11 and how Lilly began evaluating plans for greater security shortly after those events.

The Middle Ground

The opinion piece in the Greenfield Daily Reporter was a little more direct about what this decisions boils down to, "This is a business decision for the county, just as it is for the company."

Our Ground

Even if this was a purely business decision, no numbers have been presented from which to form a "business" decision from. The purported benefits to our community are questionable at best. Thus far, Lilly has not provided any hard numbers to back any supposed economic benefits our County will receive. Further, on a purely business level, Lilly's stumble last year and April's earnings disappointments cloud an already murky outlook. Job openings are often an indicator of growth or at least stability. A recent search of Monster.com on 5/1/03, where Lilly posts job listings, returned 0 job listings in Greenfield for the past 60 days! Our analysisof reported employment at Lilly Grenfield over the past decadedemonstrated a DROP in employment contrary to their reported promises.And with April's earnings disappointments blamed in part on "employeeseverance costs", Lilly appears eager to create short-term growth bysacrificing long-term costs. Collectively, on a business level, alongwith the general unknowns in the market, Lilly has not made a numberscase a banker would buy. Lilly's proposal, without substantiation,seems like a poor investment.

This is not solely just about business though; it cannot be solely just about business. Unregulated business is chaos on steroids; if everything was a business decision then "business" would operate much like The Mob - our choice on this matter would be pretty simple: either go their way or swim with the fishes. Fortunately, we have regulations in business that protect individual rights and common interests. Individual rights such as liberty and common interests such as heritage and the communal assets that we have invested in for the good of all. These concepts are not a priority in corporate ethics; corporations are governed by the rules of fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Every decision is governed by one simple question, "does this decision produce the maximum returns possible for our shareholders?"

Historically, with the location of stakeholders in such a concentrated area, our communities have been the benefactors of these rules of fiduciary responsibility. Lilly too has reaped the dividends of thier investment through the "goodwill" or "brand equity" they have developed within our community. From retaining employees during the depression to their philanthropic activities they have engendered our appreciation. But, times have changed. Lilly's value of our "goodwill" has seemingly diminished in light of the questionable tactics they have employed with this proposal. Perhaps facing increased competition from globalized markets changing faster than you can say "dot-com", Lilly has devalued "goodwill" and "brand equity". In this environment, the dilution of Hancock County's communal interests seem predictable as Lilly bows to meet the demands of shareholders reigning from every corner of the earth. Shareholders who could care less if their investment had to invoke 9/11 to achieve higher earnings, nor care about our heritage or lifestyle. They will never have to drive through the traffic this proposal will cause, they will not be cut from their community, left to live at the stub of a dead end street and they will not have their history vacated. They will never suffer the personal consequences we will pay for their investment but, they will reap the rewards of our's.

Leap of Faith

Given the sketchy details of the return on our investment, a decision on this proposal requires a level of trust that's hard to muster. Trust becomes especially relevant when the recent specter of corporate responsibility and misdeeds hovers eerily near Lilly. Lilly's Board of Directors included Ken Lay, ex-CEO and Chairman of Enron, until they dropped him in December 2001 after Enron's misdeeds became headlines but not before signing a $1.3 BILLION deal with Enron. And now, the SEC has just barred two principals of their audit firm, Ernst & Young, from auditing public companies while locally, retired Lilly accountant Willie Ryan was convicted of stealing over $3.5 million from local charities in a bingo scam. It's hard to trust their judgment let alone their promises when they consort with such dubious characters. In another recent case to make headlines, an amendment to the Homeland Security Bill was added to protect Lilly against lawsuits originating from their product thimerosal, a product with questionable links to autism. What pharmaceutical legislation was doing attached to the Homeland Security Bill is still a question left unanswered as the amendment was shelved after rounds of finger-pointing. These and other lingering questions provide shaky ground to build the foundations of trust required to make the leap of faith Lilly is asking of our community.

Lilly & supporters ask us to take, for gospel, their word taxes will be reduced while asking for authority to tax abatements. They ask us to take their word of more jobs when no jobs in Greenfield were found. And they ask us to take their word that by vacating our roads their security will increase when it will, in fact, enable the growth and extension of their power, influence and dominance - the exact things international terrorists target - thereby decreasing our own security? Does our community need to be any more of a target that it supposedly already is? Really, I don't know why international terrorists would care about their Greenfield facility. Lilly asks us to believe the hard to believe - it just doesn't even sound good.

The High Ground

Unfortunately Lilly has chosen to engage in a fight of dubious merit with questionable tactics. Even though this plan had been considered years before their recent announcement, Lilly chose to suddenly plop their request in the community's lap. Lilly is the one who has chosen to engage in carrot-and-stick public relations. And they are the ones who hold private meetings about public issues in public buildings - dividing up those meetings in an apparent attempt to quell the objectors. Lilly understands that those most affected do not have the resources Lilly has to fight this battle in court after a decision is made. They understand that this is not a fair fight. They have no fair justification for this proposal. They are a major international corporation of approximately 35,000 people worldwide plus who knows how many contractors. We here in Hancock County are a relatively small but capable community of approximately 58,000. Their divisive tactics clearly indicate they understand the strength of our integrity. With our united voice we can halt this proposal and protect our community assets.

Send an email, spread the word, write your commissioner...

Save The Road!