Going into a key Tuesday meeting, the Evansville-Vanderburgh County Reorganization Committee was thought to be close to approving a serviceable, if flawed, proposal for consolidating the Evansville and Vanderburgh County police departments — a plan that might better the odds of overall city-county consolidation passing a countywide referendum.
The 12-member citizens committee appeared ready to consolidate the two departments under the elected sheriff. It was not our choice. After considering a series of Courier & Press reports on mergers in other cities, we felt the best plan would be to consolidate the two departments under the city police department, with the mayor appointing the head of law enforcement.
But a majority of committee members may have been looking at the popularity of the men currently occupying the offices of sheriff, police chief, and mayor, and felt that by granting appointive power to Sheriff Eric Williams — clearly the most popular of the three — it would greatly enhance the chances of overall city-county consolidation being approved.
And then something utterly bizarre took place Tuesday. The committee by a 7-4 margin voted to keep the departments separate, but to give the county sheriff the power to appoint the city police chief.
The plan would take the appointment away from the mayor and give it to the sheriff. Why not just put the sheriff in charge of all city government? This is absurd. What is going to happen four or eight years from now when the roles may be reversed, and we could have a well-liked mayor and a sheriff who has fallen out of favor with the public?
City Police Chief Brad Hill, appointed by Mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel, asked whether the committee wants a strong mayoral government, and indeed, that may be the central question confronting the committee.
One of the conditions that led citizens to seek a study of city-county consolidation in the first place was the perceived need for strong, singular leadership in local government of a type that enhances economic development and gives citizens a clear understanding of their government. We have long believed that this community needs a clarity of leadership not possible when multiple governments compete with each other.
The members of this committee are bright people who have gone to great sacrifice to take on this time-consuming task. We appreciate their effort, but we fear that groupthink by a majority of members has gotten the better of them in coming up with what is a patently silly idea.
Committee member Pat Tuley, who voted against the proposal, said the committee was trying to come up with the best plan that has a chance of survival. Unfortunately, it may have the opposite effect. This plan is so off-the-wall that, were a referendum to be held tomorrow, it would likely fail.
Fortunately, the committee decided weeks ago to slow down and looked to a referendum in 2011 or 2012, and not this November. It has plenty of time to correct this errant plan.
The committee's timetable calls for it to complete its overall proposal and present it to the City Council and County Commissioners, to be followed by public hearings. The committee would then have additional time to craft a final proposal before presenting it to the government boards. The two boards could approve it or return it to the committee for more work.
Let us hope the committee uses that time wisely and reconsiders this disappointing turn of events. The potential modernization of local government is simply too important to waste on a makeshift plan for selecting a police chief.