By Eric Bradner, Evansville Courier & Press
INDIANAPOLIS - Township trustees don't want the future of their offices determined by state government, but they're much more comfortable seeing their fate decided at the ballot box.
"I think it's fair any time you let people vote," said Perry Township Trustee David Mosby, a Democrat.
Indiana's leading decision-makers coalesced last week around the idea of having voters in each of Indiana's 1,006 townships choose whether to keep their township government as-is or get rid of their trustees and three-member advisory boards and have the county take over instead.
The Democratic-controlled Indiana House passed legislation to hold the township-by-township referendum last week, signaling that it's as far as they're willing to go this year. Republicans said they aren't thrilled with the proposal, but called it a good start.
"It could be a lot better than what we have today," Gov. Mitch Daniels said Friday.
Senate leaders want to abolish advisory boards once and for all and have the referendum apply just to trustees. Daniels wants to see the decision made countywide, rather than having the question decided township by township.
But the referendum appears to be the centerpiece of this year's discussion, and the House vote indicates it stands the strongest chance local government reform has had.
"It's the best thing so far that they've come up with," said Center Township Trustee Jim "Tiger" Ritter, a Republican.
The lingering concern with the bill was raised by county-level officials who said last week they are worried that if some townships are eliminated and others remain, those who need poor relief won't know what layer of government to seek out to ask for it.
"If it resulted in the so-called checkerboard, that can't be optimal," Daniels said, adding that his preference is that the referendum be county by county, rather than township by township.
"Well, he's really kind of right," Ritter said. "I could go either way."
Still, Daniels said, the bill that cleared the House might be a solid enough starting point.
"We'll learn as we go, and there's nothing to prevent a step we take this year from being taken further in the future if it turns out that it's not working well," Daniels said.
The latest idea in an ongoing discussion over what to do about a layer of government who some call an antiquated relic and others say is an important fallback for those who need emergency assistance comes during a time of increased scrutiny of how taxpayer dollars are spent.
As the recession drains government revenues, state lawmakers and county-level officials found the pay increases some townships included in this year's budgets particularly offensive.
Mosby wanted to bump his staff's pay by $500 per member. He said they deserved it, since the economic downturn meant his office handled more requests for emergency assistance.
But after the County Council reprimanded those whose budgets included raises and asked that those pay increases be stricken, Mosby reversed course.
"I thought, we'll abide by that," he said.
Ritter was not swayed by the council then, although he might be ready to for go the pay increases now.
"I am going to talk to the board about that," he said Friday.
Raises might be unsavory at a time the state, cities and counties are holding pay steady and declining to fill job openings. But there's not much that can be done to stop them.
Under a new state law, county councils conducted reviews of township trustees' budgets. However, since the reviews were non-binding, the councils had no official authority and could do little more than shine a spotlight on what they regarded as unwise spending decisions.
The Indiana Department of Local Government Finance is the final authority, and in recent days it has given its preliminary approval of the budgets of all Vanderburgh County trustees except those in German and Union townships.
The department's chief of staff, Mary Jane Michalak, noted that there wasn't much that could be done on the state level, either.
"We kind of act like a bank," she said. "We tell them how much money is going to be there, but not how to spend it."
There are two options to curtail the raises, she said. The first is to have townships' three-member advisory boards, which meet infrequently to provide fiscal oversight, vote to eliminate them from the budgets. The other is for voters to go to the ballot box and pick new trustees and advisory boards.
A new option might exist if Senate Bill 240, which passed the Senate Local Government Committee last week, becomes law.
That bill, drafted by the committee's chair, Sen. Connie Lawson, R-Danville, would eliminate advisory boards and have county councils conduct binding reviews.
Daniels said he'd like to see that bill amended into the House township referendum bill.
"I think there's a great chance that it can be blended somehow," he said.
Mosby said he would prefer to keep his advisory board because, much like proponents of the current system argued about trustees, the board members are available to meet and handle emergencies on short notice.
"I'm getting three more opinions," Mosby said. "I can get them on the spur of the moment, and they're always willing to be right there."
For their value, the $599 a year salary the Perry Township board members earn, he said, "It's not a big price to pay."
Center Township Advisory Board member Robert Foerster was straightforward when asked why he opposes the Senate bill.
"It's not very favorable in my situation," he said.
He said if some politicians realized the number of people townships help, they would be less likely to seek their abolition.
"I don't think people really know what's all involved in township trustees and what they actually do," Foerster said.
A political animal
Gibson County Councilman Tony Wolfe points to another reason advisory boards are worth keeping. He says advisory boards are the most basic level of elected civic involvement, where those interested in helping their communities do so for very little pay.
Mark Lawrance, the senior vice president of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, agrees that township trustees and advisory board members tend to be politically active within local party organizations, but he doesn't consider that a good thing.
The chamber and others who would eliminate township government have long argued that it only exists today because politicians are afraid to anger those who fill the offices.
Vanderburgh County Councilman James Raben says he, too, sees township government officials' political involvement.
"Quite honestly, I'm trying to think of a local trustee that's not deep in the trenches in regards to every election. I think they're as politically active as a non-township elected officeholder," he said.
"I guess the question is this, do they play a role in the state legislature's elections? I think they do. They're working just like any of the other elected officials to turn an election in whichever direction they want."
Vanderburgh County Commissioner Steve Melcher said he is concerned that stripping away elected officials, political as they may be, will result in less responsive government.
"We're going to wake up one day and have one person over the county," he said. "So where I've got government I could get responses from now, I won't be able to get responses in the future from."
One of Southwest Indiana's strongest proponents of local government reform, Cheryl Musgrave, is running against Rep. Gail Riecken, D-Evansville, for the House District 77 seat.
Musgrave, a former Department of Local Government Finance commissioner, said those who hope for reform as broad as the measures she supports - many recommended in 2008 by a blue-ribbon panel chaired by Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard and former Gov. Joe Kernan - might be disappointed by House Bill 1181.
For example, the bill does not fully consolidate county and township government. Instead, it leaves township lines intact, even if township governments are abolished, so that money raised within a township's boundaries will be spent there.
"Those who would favor spreading the burden for poor relief county-wide will be disappointed that this may not happen with this bill," she said.
Also, rather than allowing counties to hire a single executive to handle poor relief and firefighting, they would have to hire an administrator to handle those duties in each township.
Still, Musgrave said, the bill is a vehicle to start the conversation.
"To the extent that it is not a 'one size fits all' solution," she said, "it is a step forward on home rule."