I have had a chance to read over the report of the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform (pdf). Following is a summary and, in parentheses, a few of my initial observations.
- Indiana government is too complicated and should be simplified.
- Too many local government decisions are delegated to appointed boards and commissions (p. 8) BUT too many local government officials are elected into their positions, making it difficult for them to work as a team. (p. 8)
- A single individual as county executive would be more efficient than the three county commissioner model. (p. 8) (but possibly less transparent and responsive)
- A model based on the realities of travel and communication by horse and hand-delivery is outdated. (reporting to Indianapolis also?)
- Local government should be more transparent with respect to decisions and spending. (For example, if the legislature mandates a duty, it should probably have to pay for that duty).
- City v. county isn’t sufficient to define the complex geographic realities these days. Recommends thinking of regions as urban, suburban, exurban, and rural. (p. 10).
- More equitable distribution of services and funding them. “Some pay for services they don’t receive; others receive services for which they do not pay. Indiana can do better at matching services received and dollars paid.” (p. 11) (Possible translation: If you can’t pay for government services, you probably shouldn’t get them. See also, Anatole France, “The law in all its majesty forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges and stealing bread.” — See? Equitable!)
- Reduce the number of local government officials.
- Only elected officials can approve debt or taxes. (p. 11).
- Elected officials should be administrators, officials such as sheriff, assessor, and coroner should be appointed rather than elected and should have professional qualification requirements. (p. 11) (I’ve got to say, appointment rather than election of the guy responsible for the Department of people with the guns makes me a little nervous.)
- (So, we should reduce the bureaucracy and reduce the number of elected officials in favor of appointed professionals except that we should have increased bureaucracy and numbers of elected officials (without any particular expertise) when it comes to funding the actions decided upon by others.)
- “It is imperative that the state develop a system of technical assistance and monitoring to ensure sustained implementation of local government reform, and that the state provide incentives and rewards for local governments that continually collaborate, innovate and improve efficiency and effectiveness.” (p. 12) (In other words, your newly efficient, stream-lined, responsive local government will have to report to an Indianapolis bureaucracy.)
- State services should be supported by state funding “wherever possible”. (When
would it be impossible for the State to provide funding for its demands
where it would not be impossible for local government to fund the State
demands?)
County recommendations (p. 13) – (Looks a lot like turning a county system of government into a city system of government – Unigov for the whole state):
Township recommendations (p. 13). Get rid of all of the township responsibilities and give them to the individual county executive. This includes, township assessment, poor relief, volunteer fire services, and cemeteries.
School recommendations (p. 14). School districts should have a minimum of 2,000 students and school bonds should be approved by the local government with the largest portion of assessed value in the district. (As long as we’re consolidating, why not just make the individual county executive the Superintendent of schools and eliminate the school board? If this super-mayor can be the chief law enforcement officer, why not the chief educator as well?)
Cities and towns (p. 14). City-clerk to be appointed by the city council in second class cities; move municipal elections to even years; transfer municipal health department responsibilities to the county health department.
Libraries and special districts (p. 14). Reorganize library systems by county. Have budgets and bonds approved by the fiscal body of the municipal or county government with the largest portion of assessed value in the unit seeking approval. (Why not just have the county fiscal body do the budget, if we’re reorganizing by county? With this assessed value business, we’re moving away from ‘one person, one vote’ toward ‘one dollar, one vote.’)
Local governments generally (p. 14). Encourage coordination and consolidation. Allow creation of “service districts with differentiated levels of service and corresponding tax rates.” (Seems like this would encourage the return to a balkanized, incomprehensible muddle of taxes and services.) Encourage collective purchasing. Prohibit local government employees from holding elected office in the local unit.
State monitoring (p. 15). Require the “Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations” to monitor progress, conduct additional research, and provide a report through 2011. Establish a statewide benchmarking system. Designate a state office to provide “technical assistance” to local government. (When I hear of “technical assistance” coming from the State, why am I reminded of the lyrics from a fun song I heard recently: “Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime; Where we’re working in a mine; For our robot overlords; Did I say “overlords”? I meant “protectors””)
The rest of the report provides a narrative explanation for the recommendations. Perhaps I will have more thoughts later.
So let me get this straight — in Madison County– with its multiple small cities and Anderson, the whole county would be basically run as one unit– essentially neutering the city councils and mayors of all those cities AS WELL as taking out all the township officials. I mean, if the city does not control it’s own police or health services.. why should it continue to do all the rest of the services?
And what happens to West Lafayette Schools (currently below the 2000 student cap)? We have the best SAT scores/ ISTEP passage rate/ etc for a public school system in the state — but they are telling us to change that by merging with a bigger corporation? ORRRRR will they finally move the boundaries (set in 1969) to the current city limits– thereby eliminating the need for Tippecanoe County to build ANY new schools for the next 10 years, while filling existing buildings in the WL corp? No, it’s more likely that they’ll allow TSC to gut the WL schools, lower our salaries and destroy the system carefully constructed.
My understanding is that this won’t remove city government officials–at least what I’ve heard here in Lake County. What it will rid us (in Lake county) of is numerous township assessors, other township officials, and a streamlining of other county offices to get rid of redundency. I can’t picture it going as far as a unigov model up here; as we are one of the most segregated counties in the nation. But anything that can cut the “good old boy” patronage system up here and save taxpayers money will be a good thing.
A fantastic change that will disappear along the way.
The folks on this committee must have been from urban areas. Consolidation of rural school districts ought to fly about as well as single class basketball and DST rolled into one. Some folks in Grant County are still grinding their teeth about the disappearance of the Swayzee Speedkings and the Van Buren Aces. Did this committee completely forget the other great dust up of 1960’s Indiana politics after DST and time zones, which was school consolidation?
Rationalization of government is fine, but when is consolidation just another way of taxing the residents? School consolidation means fewer, larger schools which can produce efficiencies of scale. But when a child has to travel 12, 15 or 18 miles to school you are imposing other sorts of burdens and costs on the kids and their parents. To say that a school district must have a minimum 2000 students because anything less than that is economically inefficient and not to consider the circumstances a particular school district is in the bureaucratic mindset at its worst. I think this part of the proposal will generate a real backlash at the polls if it is pushed.
I find consolidating executive functions in county government and eliminating township functions to be mostly sensible. But I have reservations about making the sheriffs appointed by our new County Czars, unless they propose to change the character of the office of Sheriff substantially. The sheriff’s office has been an incredibly juicy patronage plumb. Elections to be county executive will be expensive enough as is without that particular appointive perk.
No comment yet on the other aspects of the report other than pointing out that having a single county executive may be adverse to the interests of third parties and independents. The price of entry to be serious in elections will be prohibitively expensive. Just a new barrier to entry. I wonder if we couldn’t gain most of the benefits by keeping the three member boards of commissioners and having those boards appoint professional county managers?
Hmmm….
West Side Schools has 1,994 according to the Journal and Courier just a clip under the 2,000 requirement. Even if the school district remains intact, there are things that could be done, such as sharing rescources with TSC, LSC. There has been diologue of this for years……
Yes, and my understanding is that they have already entered into some agreements on those cost sharing devices….
and you’ll be surprised what the legislature buried in the law.. which will protect WestSide. Wait for the crash of cymbals from TSC soon!
Paul,
In the long run this needs to be couched in terms of educatinal oppurtunity. According to the report in 2011 77% of HS grads will not meet the minimum requirements for acceptance to Purdue and IU.
Secondly regarding this:
But when a child has to travel 12, 15 or 18 miles to school you are imposing other sorts of burdens and costs on the kids and their parents
I went to one of the largest school corporations in the state and according to Google Maps my daily trip to HS was 14.8 miles one way.
Paul,
The commission specifically recommends NOT consolidating schools but merely districts.
“Indiana has too many school districts and administrators, but Indiana does not have too many schools. We recommend retaining geographically dispersed schools to allow districts to maintain optimal class sizes and serve local populations and needs.”
Their rational for this seems solid, as Paddy points out, considering three quarters of all graduates aren’t meeting the Core 40 Honors requirement.
They also point out another fact that should trouble everyone:
“we have less instructional personnel than the national average but more non-instructional personnel than the national average.”
That’s not good…
I have no problem with consolidating the power into one county executive position, however I DO want the ability to issue a RECALL for that individual!
I really believe that part of the problem with government in Indiana is that people get into office based on lies to the public and then once they are there, there is no opportunity to “hold their feet to the fire” for the next three years. A statewide recall provision would fix that.
What would stop the one county executive from being “King of the County” and appointing his or her “qualified” friends and buddies to important county posts? These executives would find ways to get around the qualification “requirements.” Furthermore, in less populous areas, it may be hard to find “qualified” people to serve in some positions. This proposal seems to have been written from an Indianapolis mindset.
Pila,
There will still be a 7, 9 or 11 member county council that will have to approve the appointment/hires.
The easiest way I have found to explain it is to consider these new county governments like schools, except the superintendent is elected.
You have oe elected executive(superintendent) charged with leading the county(school) with support and guidance from the county council(school board).
At least that is what I gather from reading the report.
I find it interesting that there was no research or recommendations done at the state level. With the gross incompetence and lack of help/leadership the DLGF has shown over the last several years should that agency not face the axe as well?
Sorry, I’m still not on board with this. The County Executive position could have a huge amount of authority. Is it likely that the council would disagree with the executive’s appointments? Seems to me that some people have taken the property tax issue as an opportunity to dismantle government–period. What I’ve read of the report also seems very Indianapolis-centric. What consideration was given to whether the proposals would work in non-metro areas of the state? Yes, they mention rural areas, but do they understand them?
Is it me or is does no one see what is staring them in the face. These elected positions that will be usurped by the county overlord are the local peoples last line of defense against a tyranical government. Your Sheriff is the only person in the county who can stop a federal official, be it a state policeman on up the the FBI, from coming into your county. The buck stops with him whether he knows it or not. If any federal or state agency wants to take you away for what ever reason he is the only one who can stop them.
The way I see it, this is just one more consolidation that is taking away more of my rights as a citizen. I have an idea, how about we start at the top and work our way down. Is there a commission on state government reform?
Do you really think that putting that much power in one persons hands is a good idea? We have been just fine so far with the current system. I am not against streamlining by any means. But something is just not right about this proposal and everyone should look at it very closely. Or will it turn out like the proposal to sell the toll roads to a Corp. in Spain. Very hush hush until the deal was done. Did the people of the state have much say in that. Not much. Now the roads that we payed for are not even ours anymore. We pay someone in another country to drive on them.
This is just an example of how fast your beloved officials can make decisions that effect your life with out you ever being involved.
It may well be that the current set up of county and township government in Indiana is outdated, at least in part. I do not think that having an county executive is a good idea, however. I am also concerned that any opposition to this is already being construed as whining by special interests. Citizens concerned about government are now “special interests”?