Several bills in Indiana General Assembly focus on local government reform

Similar ideas have been tossed around for years, and lawmakers say it’s hard to determine whether anything will pass in a short legislative session focused on the contentious right-to-work bill.

“They’re much milder now than we’ve seen in previous years,” said Sen. Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield. “They might (pass). You can’t ever say definitely.”

Streamlining local government has been a priority for Gov. Mitch Daniels. A 2007 report released by former Gov. Joseph Kernan and Chief Justice Randall Shepard suggested several ways to streamline government in Indiana’s 1,008 townships and 92 counties. Reform, the Kernan-Shepard report said, would reduce bureaucracy and overhead.

Bills before the Legislature have not gone far, though, as local officials have voiced their concern over change. Now, in Daniels’ final year, watered-down proposals stand before the Legislature once again.

Gard, who serves on the Senate’s Local Government Committee, said bills on nepotism and conflicts of interest are likely to pass. Two similar bills in the House and Senate would make it impossible for an employee of municipality to serve on the council. It would also not allow for employees of a county, city or town to work under direct supervision of a relative.

“I think most people realize it just needs to pass,” she said.

The Senate version of the bill passed the Senate Monday, 39-11.

For Greenfield City Councilman Jason Horning, the bill represents one way the legislature is trying to “micromanage” local government.

Horning, who was just elected to his third term on the council, is a deputy fire chief for the Greenfield Fire Territory. If a nepotism bill passes, he would be able to serve his term but then he would have to decide whether to remain a city employee or run for council again. He wouldn’t be able to do both.

“The majority of people of District 4 decided they wanted me to represent them on city council, and the state is taking that away from them,” Horning said. “When I ran for election, I made it very clear where I work. I never tried to hide that from anybody.”

Horning said he recuses himself from every vote related to salaries for the fire department. He does vote on equipment-related purchases, but said he doesn’t get personal gain from the equipment. Several years ago, he added, he denied a purchase of equipment because the city council couldn’t find the money for it.

Horning said he would understand if the Legislature wanted to pass a law requiring him to recuse himself from salary-related votes. But at the same time, he points out that elected officials everywhere approve their own salaries.

Rep. Bob Cherry, R-Greenfield, said there is a lot of support from the House on the nepotism bill. He became a co-signer of House Bill 1005, along with about 54 other state representatives.

Cherry said the bill needs to be signed into law to eliminate the negative public perception of nepotism in local government. He said Horning may be an exception to the rule, but family relationships and conflicts of interest can be abused in local government.

Another bill before the Indiana General Assembly changes the structure of county government. The three-member board of county commissioners could be reduced to one, and county council members would represent districts; no at-large members would be elected.

The change to a single county executive would make county government more like city government, lawmakers say. But instead of approving changes for the entire state, the bill allows each county to decide whether it wants to make the switch. Change would require a unanimous vote by the commissioners or approval by referendum, leaving the potential of counties to operate differently throughout the state.

“I seriously doubt three (county commissioners) are going to vote to get rid of two,” Hancock County Commissioner Brad Armstrong said. “I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.”

If the commissioners do not approve of the change to a single county executive, the matter could still go before the public if 2 percent of voters sign a petition to put it on a ballot.

“It’s not particularly a popular idea; that’s why I think a referendum is justified,” Gard said. “I have a gut feeling Hancock County wouldn’t do it.”

While Armstrong can see where a single county commissioner would be beneficial in getting work done more quickly, he also worries that one person could abuse the authority.

Commissioner Tom Stevens opposes the bill.

“I believe it’s another attempt to take government away from the people,” Stevens said. “If there’s a single county executive to replace that board, 95 percent of everything he or she would do would be behind closed doors.”

He also doesn’t want counties to operate differently throughout the state because he gains a lot of knowledge from commissioner associations. If counties work differently, it would be hard to compare notes.

Hancock County Councilman Bill Bolander worries that a single county executive would cost more in salaries in the long run. That’s because, he said, it would be a full-time position that would probably include an assistant.

If the county goes to a single executive commissioner, it would also change the structure of the county council. There would no longer be at-large members, but seven district members. And the council would take on the legislative powers now held by the three commissioners.

“It would make sure there is balanced representation from all parts of the county,” Gard said.

Looking at the current makeup of the Hancock County Council, for example, Gard said the at-large members are from Center Township, making the majority of members Greenfield residents. Dividing the county into seven districts would balance representation more for rural residents.

“I don’t really see that it makes much of a difference myself,” Councilman Jim Shelby said.

He said the perception that certain parts of the county are not represented is “greatly overblown.”

Another bill before the Legislature would address township government by eliminating boards and placing fiscal responsibility on the county council.

“I think it works pretty well the way it is,” Bolander said of township government.

He said the way it is now, township boards provide oversight on finances and the township trustee; the county council also reviews budgets.

Shelby said he would be in favor of that change, for the most part. He said it would put more budgets under supervision of the county council, but he would not want the county to have to dole out poor relief. That, he said, would require the county to hire more employees.

Township trustees are responsible for administering poor relief.

Whether the bills will change, pass or fizzle out has yet to be seen.

Cherry said it’s been hard to determine whether the ideas have merit: It has been difficult to prove whether they’ll save money or make government more efficient.

Cherry, who was entering into a debate Monday on the right-to-work legislation, said in the last few years the Legislature has had a lot of issues to discuss.

“I think we had bigger fish to fry,” he said. “We’ve tried to get our economy turned around.”

Gard said it’s taken several years to address local government reform because there are many sides to the ideas. The fact that this is the governor’s last year does not weigh heavily on whether they will pass, she said.

“Sometimes these ideas take a number of years to massage and get to the point where it would pass,” Gard said.