State Republican Leadership To Kill Property Tax Reform

Masson's Blog does an excellent job covering news from the state legislature and he brings us a story about the House Republicans' effort to sabotage property tax reform. The Republican leadership has decided to attach a poison pill amendment to HJR-1 which is the resolution to amend the state constitution to include the 1% property tax cap. Their poison pill is an anti-gay marriage amendment and will effectively kill the resolution - a resolution that until now enjoyed bipartisan support.

The Republicans at the state house need to get serious about tax reform and stop screwing around with election year games. This whole process has been about as bipartisan as anything I've seen and these idiots are going to wreck the whole thing. They can push their bigoted agenda some other time - for now they should just concentrate on tax reform...

Referendum Discussed at State Legislature Hearing in Fort Wayne

Last Wednesday the Indiana House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing here in Fort Wayne to get input from public officials and citizens on the issue of property taxes. Evert Mol, leader of the successful FWCS facilities project remonstrance, spoke before the committee about the need for a referendum process. His remarks are transcribed below:

Last year Fort Wayne saw why we’re unable to slow the rise in property taxes in spite of taxpayer opposition. In February, in a process similar to the one that played out in Indianapolis a few years ago, our school board by a 6 to 1 margin approved a $500 MM bond issue for a capital project. In June that project was defeated in a remonstrance by a margin of 7 to 2. How could a board elected to represent the interests of taxpayers as well as the schools misjudge taxpayer sentiments by that much?

One reason is that the public meetings and hearings before the February vote were designed to sell the project, not to listen to objections from taxpayers. But in any case the only way to really know what taxpayers think is to allow them to vote. Lacking requirements for a ballot referendum, we had to initiate and conduct a remonstrance, a massive petition drive, to give taxpayers that voice. Without a remonstrance, taxpayer objections would not have mattered and property taxes, already set to increase by an average of 15%, would have gone up another 20% over the next 5 years. In a city the size of Fort Wayne a remonstrance is an expensive and time consuming proposition. It’s an undue burden for taxpayers. Last year’s change in the law allowing all registered voters to participate will make the process even more daunting next time.

Although this particular project triggered a remonstrance process which seems to be designed to discourage opposition, many projects go unchallenged and the taxpayers have no voice. Who would go to all that trouble for smaller projects, say $50 MM or $20 MM even if they weren’t justified, knowing that the winning the remonstrance doesn’t even stop the project, but merely delays it for a year. Yes, the new proposal is supposed to be “substantially different” but how do you define and enforce that requirement except through the courts?

Construction projects are a major factor in rising taxes. Elected officials have repeatedly shown they are unwilling to stop them or scale them back, so taxpayers need a viable means to vote on them. A petition drive is not a viable means for most taxpayers. They need to be able to vote on projects in a ballot referendum as the governor has proposed. Yes, that forces the taxing entity to work harder on their costs and justification. But it will not mean, as Senator Kenly told me, that “nothing will pass”. In fact the success rate in states with referendums is higher than it is in Indiana with remonstrances.

The Governor called the remonstrance process “klutzy”. Having done one in a large city, I think “insane” is a better word. No other state forces its taxpayers to do this. It’s time Indiana joins them.

Evert Mol
Fort Wayne

Government Reform Scare Tactics

The Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform stated that Indiana should consolidate school districts to achieve a minimum student population of 2000. At the time, I wrote that this idea was probably DOA considering people would fight like hell to keep their district as is. An op-ed piece in yesterday's JG by the superintendent of Hamilton Community Schools confirms my suspicion, but it goes a step too far by employing scare tactics and half-truths about what the Commission is actually proposing to consolidate:

A large percentage of the commerce in Hamilton is done during the time that people are either going to or coming from school. If the school goes away, business will go away as well. Metz is a small community that fell victim to the last round of consolidation. After the school was removed, development in the town dried up.

These issues cannot always be measured by dollars and cents. The school provides a focal point for small communities, the source of entertainment and recreation.

Ok, let's just stop right there as citizens need to recognize this half-truth when they see it. The writer would have you believe that the Commission is recommending consolidation of schools but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Commission specifically says (p28) that only school districts, and not schools, should be consolidated:

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.

So what we appear to have is a superintendent using scare tactics to try and protect his turf. What he doesn't tell you is that Indiana has more administrators than the national average but fewer instructional staff than the national average (p27). He tries to continue his justification of this by employing his next scare tactic that actually borderlines on parody as he invokes the dirty word of "Socialism":

The government reform commission wants to do away with many units of government and those who are elected to oversee these units. This is being done under the guise that local politicians are out of control and spending money for things that they should not be spending it on. It appears that there are those who may use this to centralize power for their own purposes.

We need to resist this creeping socialism, as it brings about images of Big Brother. A process is already in place to hold elected officials accountable: the election process. If we are truly a government of, by and for the people, we need to be mindful of the effect that the elimination of locally elected officials will have, as we will have to answer to appointed bureaucrats who are not directly accountable to citizen review.

That statement is just ridiculous. First off, how can eliminating government be considered socialist or an expansion of Big Brother? Second, the commission has only recommended non-legislative government positions be changed to appointed positions. Do you want the best auditor for the job or a political crony? Day to day operations run by department heads do not need to be elected. If this author is so big on elections then why not call for himself to be elected as the superintendent? Of course we elect a school board which then hires a superintendent - that is the exact process the Commission has recommended. Lastly, I have news for this author, our state constitution requires every child be given a free education - that is socialism and I think most people tend to think it's a good thing in this case.

There might be substantive reasons not to follow specific recommendations of the Commission but we shouldn't let fear mongers like this dictate the debate...

My Thoughts On Local Government Reform Report - Part 2

I know I promised this yesterday but better late than never I suppose. Numbers 18, 19 and 24 are the most important IMO:

15. Allow the city council to appoint the city clerk in second-class cities.

This is consistent with having administrative positions become appointed rather than elected and I would support this.


16. Move all municipal elections to an even-year election cycle

I know this might be unpopular for some because they like the idea of having regular elections, and I'm also sympathetic to those that want to keep the number of candidates they have to research to a minimum. However, the report points out that some cities are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars they could otherwise save if they piggybacked onto the other elections.


17. Transfer the responsibilities of municipal health departments to the county health department

We've already gone through that consolidation here in Allen County and I think it makes sense for other counties to do this as well.


18. Reorganize library systems by county and provide government library service for all citizens

The report points out that Indiana already has an excellent library system that ranked second in the country in 2004. However they also show that using statewide benchmarks can mask some of the underlying problems. For example they cite that 395,000 citizens do not have access to library services in their communities, and that our libraries employ twice as many staff as the national average. Much of the "over-employment" probably comes from the fact that 60% of our library districts account for only 8% of the statewide circulation. Like for schools, the commission only recommends consolidating districts and not actual libraries. Why in the world do we have 239 library districts and only 92 counties? In fact why do we have library districts at all? The commission is right to recommend that these be rolled into the counties.


19. Require that the budgets and bonds of library and all other special districts be approved by the fiscal body of the municipality or county government containing the greatest proportion of assessed value in the unit seeking approval

This should be one of the first recommendations that gets passed. Is is outrageous that Indiana allows unelected officials to issue debt and raise property taxes. As John B Kalb would say - Taxation without representation is tyranny!


20. Strengthen the current joint purchasing infrastructure of libraries

This makes sense to me but the committee's recommendation was rather weak as there's no mechanism suggested to ensure this gets done.


21. Expand voluntary coordination and consolidation of units and services. Strengthen the power of voters to compel consolidation.

One of the problems with consolidation is there no incentive for bureaucrats to take action. The commission is recommending that the state legislature give incentives to local government such as property tax credits and more local revenue tools. I would go a step further by allowing consolidation to take place via referendum. If the people want to consolidate their government then that should be their right and we should remove any and all barriers that are denying the people's will.


22. Allow local governments to establish service districts with differentiated levels of service and corresponding tax rates

Essentially this would allow local government to tax citizens within different geographic locations differently. For example if you're outside the city you shouldn't be paying for city water and sewer. This seems to be a secondary recommendation but would become critical if the other consolidation recommendations passed.


23. Facilitate local improvement efforts using best public management and business practices. Strengthen state mechanisms that support these activities, particularly for collective purchasing

This is all about applying six sigma, total quality management, or another cost/quality management system to local government. I'm not a big fan of six sigma (that's an entire post to itself) but as long as local government has a mechanism to measure their service and find areas for improvement then I'm happy. Also, Fort Wayne was mentioned in this recommendation - "The recently achieved improvements in service to citizens in Fort Wayne are worth emulating".


24. Prohibit employees of a local government unit from serving as elected officials within the same local unit of government

This should be enacted immediately and was a big reason why I could not support Marty Bender's candidacy for city council. Here's what the commission had to say:


First, it is a clear conflict of interest for public employees to benefit from their actions as elected officials. Second, it undermines the chain of command and procedures for discipline that are critical to effective public services, particularly public safety. And perhaps most important, it diminishes the faith that citizens must have that local governments act in the public interest.


I couldn't agree more but evidently the people of Fort Wayne disagree.


25. Assign the Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to monitor progress toward these recommendations and conduct additional research as needed. Produce an annual report on progress through 2011.

You mean we're going to establish benchmarks (see below) AND measure results? Somebody pinch me...


26. Establish a statewide benchmarking system to provide the public and policymakers with current information about local government productivity and progress

See previous comment. They also want to create a regularly updated database that's available to the public. THIS is how it should be done at all levels of government.


27. Designate a state office to provide technical assistance to local government

The commission is wise to suggest such a position and they go a step further by suggesting this office should have no other responsibilities so they don't get bogged down by other issues. I would only go a step further by putting a sunset date on this position so it's effectively eliminated at some future date unless the state legislature renews it...

The Sheriff Should be Appointed

The Indiana Commission on Local Government and Reform has recommended (#3) that the sheriff, along with other positions, change from elected to appointed positions. There was no doubt that sheriffs were going to be opposed to this recommendation and Niki Kelly of the JG quotes our own Sheriff Ken Fries' opposition:

Allen County Sheriff Ken Fries called the idea of eliminating county sheriffs “utterly ridiculous.”

That would be ridiculous if anyone were actually proposing to do such a thing. On the contrary, the commission merely recommended that they become an appointed position and for good reason as party affiliation does not make you qualified to be sheriff. On top of that, the sheriff, as an administrator, should carry out the policies of the executive branch much in the same way as the Chief of Police, the FBI director, the Department of Homeland Security, etc. Fries continues his argument:

Fries said such a move would take away the power of voters to decide who should fill the office and that placing such power in the hands of a few county officials would increase the threat of corruption.

“It’s much more effective and efficient to have (the sheriff) elected as opposed to appointed,” Fries said.

Again, I respectfully disagree. In fact I don't believe it's even debatable that it's more effective for an executive to pick their administrators than to have them elected. The executive has certain policies in mind and are in the best position to hire the most qualified candidate to carry out those policies. Does the average voter even understand what a county sheriff does, let alone which candidate is more qualified?

Don't get me wrong, I think Sheriff Fries is doing a fine job and would make an excellent choice for sheriff even if the position were to become appointed - which I hope is ultimately what happens...

My Thoughts on the Local Government Reform Report - Part 1

I am extremely impressed with this report. It actually appears that a government commission toured the state, listened to citizens and created a blueprint for streamlining our local government. I must say that the cynic in me was not expecting a document this thorough or this bold. About the only criticism I have is that they didn't attach any cost savings to their recommendations. Granted this would've been more difficult, but I think it's the missing piece that really would've generated the necessary momentum to get these recommendations enacted.

Now, for the wonks out there I'm going to go through each recommendation and give my comments. Seeing as there are 27 recommendations I decided to break it down into two posts. Here's part 1 and I'll have the other half tomorrow. Let me know what you think about any of the specific recommendations

1. Establish a single-person elected county chief executive.

As you'll soon see this is the recommendation that makes many of the others work. This also makes perfect sense - why have multiple commissioners and a county council all passing the buck? Nobody blinks when discussing the executive branch within a municipality and county government should be the same. If citizens want accountability then there needs to be somebody at the top of the food chain.


2. Establish a single, unified legislative body for county government. Expand legislative membership to ensure sufficient representation for included rural suburban and urban populations.

The report points out that we're the only state that divides fisacal and legislative decisions between two separate elected bodies. I've pointed out several instances of infighting between the commissioners and the county council here in Allen County. It's time we elect a county "mayor" and consolidate the powers of the commissioners and council into one legislative body. I doubt many citizens even know which body is responsible for what. On several occassions I've had to ask the commissioners that very question.


3. Transfer the responsibility for administering the duties of the county auditor, treasurer, recorder, assessor, surveyor, sheriff and coroner to the county executive. Transfer the varied duties of the clerk to the courts, the county election board and the county executive. Establish objective minimum professional qualifications and standards for certain county administrative functions.

The report points out that these are not typically thought of as policy positions as they are administrative in nature. I agree with the commission that these positions should not be elected positions. I want the best person for the job and not some political hack from the right party. However, I do believe the county legislative body should have to give their approval in order to maintain some oversight. Appointing the sheriff is likely to be controversial but the report makes a valid point by saying that other law enforcement positions are not elected - i.e. chief of police, FBI director, etc


4. Retain a local government role for property tax assessment under a county assessor required to meet professional qualifications and appointed by the county executive.

This seems like a no-brainer as local officials should be assessing local property. However the commission then contradicts itself by saying that the assessment of industrial and commercial property should be done by the state. This is a horrible idea and is an overreaction to the current property tax dustup. Local officials know thier markets better than some state bureacrat does. Ensuring the county assessors meet specific professional qualifications will be more than enough.


5. Create a countywide body to oversee the provision of all public safety services.

This community can't even agree on who should run the 911 call centers let alone all the public safety services. The report points out that that there is a lot of duplication of services here that cost taxpayers money. As an example they cite the fact that city residents pay for both county and city law enforcement. I have a feeling this is where a tremendous amount of cost savings can be achieved. Howver, as President Clinton was fond of saying, good policy doesn't always make for good politics. So how are they going to get this done? The commission recommends a freeze on all public safety levies until the change is made. Good luck


6. Consolidate emergency public safety dispatch by county or multi-county region. Require that new, local emergency communications systems be compatible with the Project Hoosier SAFE-T statewide 800MHz communications system.

Clearly the dispatch centers should be consolidated - bureaucratic infighting is the only thing holding it back. But I don't know enough about the SAFE-T system to even comment.


7. Transfer the responsibility for all funding of the state's trial court system to the state, including public defenders and probation

This points to one of the commission's guiding principals - things required by the state should be paid for by the state. Citizens should not have unequal access to the legal system due to where they live.


8. Move the funding of child welfare from counties to the state

Again, state mandates should be paid for by the state


9. Transfer the responsibility for administering the duties of township government for assessment, poor relief, fire protectio...(etc) to the county executive. Establish a countywide poor relief levy.

Readers will remember that this was the subject of a previous post here at FWL where I argued for this very recommendation. The report informs us that "no other state has a universal layer of township government." The commission also believes that the county government is "large enough to allow economies of scale but not so large that they preclude sufficient access for citizens". I agree 100%


10. Transfer the responsibilities of the township small claims courts in Marion County to superior courts.

Only affects those in Marion county but this seems redundant since the previous recommendation axed the townships altogether.


11. Reorganize school districts to achieve a minimum student population of 2000. Establish state standards and county-based planning process similar to that established in 1959 legislation

Ok, this is going to be controversial. Many people enjoy small schools and fear that consolidating districts will take that away. However the commission specifically states that they do not want to consolidate schools:


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.


To back up this claim they tell us that Indiana employs fewer instruction personnel than the national average but more non-instructional personell than the national average. That is NOT a where we should be. This could be a post all on its own but suffice to say that I think this one is DOA. Many people base where they live on the school district and they will fight like hell to keep that barrier in place.


12. Require that school corporation bonds be approved by the fiscal body of the municipal or county government containing the greatest proportion of assessed value in the school district.

Amen. Upon moving here I was simply amazed that the school board was it's own taxing authority. This is a long overdue change for Indiana government. However, the commission does not go far enough as they don't suggest that citizens should be able to remonstrate through a referendum process. The current process is a mess and unfairly stacks the deck against the citizenry. And I reject the idea that citizens will never vote to build new schools. One only needs to look at the most recent FWCS remonstrance process, where the district could've avoided a remonstrance altogether by opting for $300 Million instead of pushing for the full $500 Million, to know that isn't true.


13. Prompt joint purchasing by schools

The report points out that very few districts are purchasing items jointly and they recommend that they be required to purchase specific items as part of joint agreements.


14. Conduct all non-partisan school elections during November in even years

Another no-brainer as schoold districts should not be allowed to hold their elections during primary season. Government should strive for higher voter turnout and not the opposite.

Report on Local Government Reform is Released

The Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform has released their much-anticipated final report. A few recommendations from the press release:

1. County governments should be led by a single, elected county executive and a stronger county council, to which professionally qualified administrators should report and be accountable.


2. The services performed by township personnel should be transferred to the county governments.


3. All local public safety services should be coordinated countywide, and regionally where appropriate. Emergency dispatch must be centralized, at least countywide, using the compatible 800 MHz system.


4. Only elected officials should have the power to levy taxes.


5. Indiana’s school districts should be large enough to gather sufficient resources to educate our children for 21st-century life.


6. All spending, including school spending, should be subject to more rigorous examination by elected officials.


7. A statewide office should be designated to provide technical assistance to help local governments make recommended changes.

I'll have more on this after I have a chance to read the final report but suffice to say that I'm encouraged by some of these findings. The best recommendation yet is #4 - I simply cannot believe that the state of Indiana allows un-elected individuals to raise our taxes without approval. Also, as I expected, the commission is recommending that township services be rolled up to the county level...

UPDATE: I've had a chance to read the full report and I must say that I'm very impressed as the commission went above and beyond my expectations. There's too much to discuss for a post right now but I'll have one up this evening giving my thoughts on the 27 recommendations...