A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

Voter ID

by 13 Comments

stAllio! has a good post on the subject of the Voter ID law and its impact on voting. The provisional vote process gives us something of a record as to whether otherwise eligible voters were deprived of their right to vote. The Marion County provisional ballots show 34 provisional ballots. Only two followed up by returning to the Clerk’s office to show their ID, thereby allowing their votes to count — meaning 32 of them were apparently disenfranchised. Of those 32, 26 appear to have been long-time voters at their particular precinct.

As stAllio! puts it:

of the 32, 26 were regular, long-term voters who had been voting in that location for years, but this year their votes were taken away from them. and that’s just in marion county, in one election that had low turnout in many areas. how many more were disenfranchised statewide? and how many more will be disenfranchised if the law isn’t overturned?

Report of the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform

by 17 Comments

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  • A model based on the realities of travel and communication by horse and hand-delivery is outdated.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):

Vastly more powerful county executive – Reduce the 3-person board of commissioners to a single person executive; give that individual the powers of the auditor, treasurer, recorder, assessor, surveyor, sheriff, and corner. (That person would then appoint underlings to perform these duties). Transfer the duties of the Clerk to “the courts” (in a county with multiple courts, does this mean the judges have to operate by committee?), to the election board, and to the county executive. Create a county-wide body for all public safety services (presumably this means a merger of city & county police forces, fire departments, and ambulance services). Transfer responsibility to the State for funding of the trial court system, including public defenders and probation, and the child welfare system.

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.

Too much local government

by 5 Comments

The Shepard-Kernan report on government reform will be released today. The Evansville Courier Press has an editorial on the subject. Governor Daniels commissioned former Governor Kernan and current Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard to take a look at local government and propose reforms.

Part of the problem with local government in Indiana is that there’s just too much of it, Daniels has said. Indiana has 2,730 local units of government that can levy property taxes — including counties, townships, cities, towns and school corporations — plus an estimated 10,746 elected officials, according to the Daniels administration.
. . .
It may have made sense to have very local government in the 1850s, when contacting or visiting the county seat or state capital was far more difficult than it is now, said James Madison, a history professor at Indiana University. But that government model created under the 1851 state constitution was outdated by the 1930s, Madison said.

The commission’s charge is here.

The Commission on Local Government Reform is charged with recommending ways to restructure local government to increase efficiency and reduce the financial burden on Indiana taxpayers.

By the end of 2007 it will deliver a set of proposals for changing the structure, organization, and number of units of local government (and local officials).

In conducting its work, the Commission will seek to answer the following questions about the future of local government in Indiana:

1. What local government offices might be eliminated to achieve efficiencies and cost savings for Hoosier taxpayers? In specific, should township/county property tax assessors be abolished in favor of a uniform process managed by the state?
2. What local units of government (including schools and libraries) might be successfully consolidated to reduce overhead and administrative expenses?
3. What services or functions of local government might be reduced, eliminated, or provided in new ways to achieve savings for Hoosier taxpayers?
4. What constitutional, statutory, administrative, or other changes are necessary to achieve significant reforms in the structure and organization of Indiana state government?

Note that the commission started with the assumption that local government needed to be consolidated, reduced, and eliminated. The charge did not call for the commission to look at any benefits local government might provide. It did not call for a look at how, for example, state government power might be distributed to local units to make them more useful.

The editorial suggests that, back when Indiana’s government was formed, local government was more necessary because it was harder to travel to and communicate with Indianapolis. The editorial points out that this suggestion was made as far back as the 1930s. But, a funny thing has happened since the 1930s. Information technology has changed such that a top-down, pyramid command structure is no longer necessarily the most efficient management model. Often times, distributed decision making is more flexible, efficient, and responsive.

Legislators should take a look at the commission’s recommendations. But they should recognize the possibility that the recommendations were already built into the initial assumptions. Perhaps they could take this opportunity to empower local government so that it does not have to waste valuable time and resources going through Indianapolis before decisions can be made.

Update The Indianapolis Star has article on the subject here. One rumored proposal mentioned in that article is to go from three county commissioner to one. That would be in line with Daniels’ apparent preference for the pharaonic model of government — one supreme leader receiving information from the masses and then issuing mandates. Multiple decision makers living down in the trenches with those they govern isn’t really in the finest Daniels tradition.

Update II The Kernan-Shepard Report is available here (pdf).

Colts v. Ravens

by 4 Comments

I thought coming into Baltimore this week was going to be a problem. The Ravens would be bitter about their narrow loss against New England last week and, well, it’s the Colts coming back to Baltimore. But, right now, it’s 44 – 13 with 2 minutes to go, and frankly, the score makes the game sound closer than it actually was. Manning and a lot of the other starters have been out since mid-way through the 3rd quarter. If Belichick were coaching the Colts instead of Dungy, Indianapolis would have about 70 points and Manning would have 6 – 8 touchdown passes.

Instead, we’ve been treated to the quarterback stylings of Jim Sorgi and a Sanders-less defense. Not sure why I’m still watching other than that I can’t help myself. Hopefully only having to play half a game this week will help the Colts rest up and get healthy during the stretch run.

Republicans block middle class tax break

by 13 Comments

Sylvia Smith, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, has a story on the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is a secondary calculation on tax obligations, originally designed so that rich people paid at least some tax if they were too successful using exemptions and the like for tax avoidance. Unfortunately, the AMT was not indexed to inflation and now threatens middle class tax payers. In years past, Congress has passed band-aid fixes that temporarily exempt taxpayers of more modest means.

This year, Republicans are blocking Democratic efforts to save middle class taxpayers from the AMT because the Democrats’ proposals involve taxing wealthy taxpayers more heavily to avoid increasing deficit spending.

According to the Tax Policy Center, a joint program of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, nearly half of all taxpayers with incomes less than $100,000 will have to pay the millionaires’ tax next year unless Congress changes the law. This year, fewer than 1 percent of those taxpayers were subject to the alternative minimum tax.

The idea behind the alternative minimum tax, enacted nearly 40 years ago to prevent 155 very rich families from sheltering most of their income, was to make sure everyone paid a minimum amount.
. . .
The House bill includes higher taxes for some well-off people to offset the cost of the patch because Democrats have insisted any new spending or tax cuts be paid for.

Bush says he will veto the House bill. Mark Souder is opposed to the bill because he would prefer to add to the deficit than tax the wealthy. Mark Souder: Champion of Red-ink Republicanism.

It’s a legitimate debate as to who should pay taxes:
Current status – Middle class taxpayers.
Democratic preference – Rich taxpayers.
Republican preference – Our kids (with interest).

Grassley investigates ministries for compliance with nonprofit rules

by 3 Comments

The AP has an article on Sen. Chuck Grassley’s investigation of 6 ministries to determine whether they are complying with rules governing nonprofit institutions. (h/t Dispatches from the Culture Wars).

A month ago, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley sent pointed questions to a half-dozen high-profile ministries asking about salaries, perks and private jets in a quest to determine whether rules governing tax-exempt groups had been broken.

Only two of the six have responded. Some of the non-respondents have said simply that they need more time. Others have suggested that they will resist on grounds of separation of church & state. As to the latter, “Grassley has emphasized that he is not investigating doctrine but making sure organizations enjoying the benefits of tax-exempt status are playing by the rules. Grassley dismissed the religious liberty argument.

“Forget it,” he said. “They don’t have a leg to stand on.””

Apparently the IRS has different rules for religious institutions than it does for other non-profits and does not require churches to make its financial records public. During Grassley’s tenure on the Senate Finance Committee, he says that it’s only been necessary to issue subpoenas in two investigations — Enron and Jack Abramoff. If I were a nonprofit enjoying a preferential tax status, I’d be hesitant to join the company of the likes of Enron and Abramoff and would probably be inclined to err on the side of disclosure.

HB 1038 – Time Referendum

by 8 Comments

HB 1038 which calls for a referendum on Indiana’s time has been introduced, appropriately enough by Rep. Kreg Battles. Battles took the seat of former Rep. Troy “I’ll never vote for it” Woodruff. Woodruff reneged on his promise to his constituents not to vote for Daylight Saving Time. By doing so, he became the deciding vote in passing the Daylight Saving Time bill which had apparently sustained more fatal blows than Rasputin only to keep coming back. Woodruff effectively traded his political life for that of the DST bill.

Battles’ referendum bill calls for a public question on the ballot that asks (1) whether all Indiana should be located in the same time zone; and (2) if all Indiana could be located in the same time zone, whether it should be located in the Central Time Zone or the Eastern Time Zone.

I don’t particularly like the chances of this bill passing, but I don’t see any downside to reminding voters of how DST was adopted without any real consensus.

Tight as a Tick in Iowa

by Leave a Comment

The Democratic primary fight in Iowa is “tight as a tick.” John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton are essentially in a 3-way tie. Several polls have the three candidates polling at levels within the margin of error of one another. Given how tough it is to poll in Iowa, this probably means it’s anybody’s race. The interesting thing will be how secondary candidates’ supporters peel off to support the primary candidates — in the Iowa caucuses, if a candidate doesn’t get above a certain level of support, that candidate’s supporters are supposed to go to their second choice among the candidates that did get more than the threshold level of support. I seem to recall something from 2004 about Edwards and Kucinich striking a deal whereby Kucinich supporters ended up going over to Edwards.