OPINIONS: Townships provide quick and efficient services

Driskell is executive director of the Indiana Township Association and president of the National Association of Towns & Townships.

The value of township government is found in the vital services provided directly to its citizens at a comparatively low cost. Statewide, only 3 percent of your property tax dollar goes toward township government, yet citizens receive poor relief, fire protection, parks and recreation services, community centers, cemetery maintenance and weed control. Transferring these duties to a county-run system will increase costs and diminish the level of service.

Proponents of centralizing government services would take the current system, where trustees are directly elected by the taxpayers, and replace it with a bureaucracy, where appointed officials make decisions but cannot be held accountable by the voters. No savings would be realized either. Trustees who make on average only a few thousand dollars a year would be replaced by bureaucrats earning more than $30,000 annually plus benefits. For those who think centralizing services would save money, look at the dramatic cost increases that occurred when welfare oversight was transferred from the counties to the state.

Despite the best efforts to minimize costs to the taxpayers, it can be costly to administer emergency assistance. By law, trustees are required to conduct a full investigation of those seeking assistance. This review must be completed and a decision rendered within 72 hours. Compare that to the state-run food stamp program, which takes from 30 to 45 days to make a determination. In the meantime, while that family is waiting on bureaucrats to make a decision, to whom do they turn for immediate assistance? Their township trustee, of course.

Relegating the township assistance program to a state or county program likely would ensure that emergency assistance becomes just another welfare entitlement program. While these other programs require a re-examination on a biannual or even annual basis, a trustee must evaluate a household's needs every 30 days.

Investigating a household requires administrative time that pays for itself in the fraud that is prevented and the baseless requests that are denied. The current system allows for creative problem solving to find other community resources to meet needs rather than relying solely on tax dollars.

Even though trustees provide this efficient and effective service on a routine basis, opponents of township government claim inefficiencies exist within the system. They point to administrative costs as being excessive, yet fail to take into account the procedures followed by trustees and the important services provided at the township level -- services that require actual manpower rather than a recurring cash benefit.

Many townships operate food pantries, run clothing drives or work with other community-based providers that can assist those in need. These efforts require significant investments of time yet don't result in actual tax dollars being disbursed, driving up the ratio of administrative dollars versus actual cash distributed and giving the appearance of excessive administrative costs.

Townships also effectively provide fire protection for unincorporated areas of the state. While the current system allows each community to decide what level of service is appropriate, a countywide system would require parity of services and a dramatic increase in costs. A uniform system of fire protection may sound good in theory, but it is simply unaffordable in most areas. That is why many Indiana communities continue to rely on volunteer-based services. Volunteers work tirelessly to raise money because they know that those funds will be kept in their community and in their township.

In many ways, townships act much like a typical Hoosier family when paying bills or making significant purchases. Townships often will save money for years before making a substantial purchase, such as a new fire truck. In addition, townships will also maintain sufficient cash reserves to ensure that the needs of constituents are met even in difficult economic times. Ironically, critics point to these savings as evidence of excessive cash balances, completely missing how this actually is a responsible approach to governing.