2004

Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations

.....
click here to return to index

The opinions expressed in these articles and features are those of their author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of McANA or the opinion of its Directors or Officers.

Thoughts on Consolidation Proposal 
by Cathy Burton
[President of McANA]

The very term "overhauling Unigov", a phrase frequently being used to describe the Indianapolis Works proposal being advanced by Mayor Peterson, implies that Unigov has been flawed in its function for the past several decades. Whether the original concept of Unigov was flawed or whether it was simply improperly or incompletely instituted is certainly a critical part of the basic debate surrounding the current proposal. We cannot truly evaluate the detriments or merits of the Indianapolis Works proposal without understanding what actions led Indianapolis to its current financial crises. That evaluation must include an understanding of the original goals of Unigov and an analysis of which of those goals were achieved and which remained unfinished.

Some human nature automatically resists change. Some human nature automatically embraces change. Often these reactions occur without consideration of the facts. Sometimes fact must outweigh instinct and sometimes a good gut reaction is worth more than the facts. As our City faces one of the most monumental decisions in its history, it is difficult to say how the conclusion on the discussion to consolidate city, county, and township government will be reached. I have not yet had the opportunity to analyze the 6 inch high stack of information sitting on my desk waiting for my pen and highlighter to make their marks. But I already have questions.

Did Unigov do what it was intended to do? Was the process completed? Have the benefits and 
shortcomings of Unigov as it has been practiced for four decades been truly analyzed? Are the residents of this county better off because of the institution of Unigov? What is different in our current governmental climate that makes it seem appropriate to "overhaul Unigov?" If there were or are inequities in services provided to residents of the old city and county boundaries, why were those inequities created and how will the new proposal reverse those inequities?

In developing this proposal, what was the degree of consultation with the township governments and the police and emergency services? In the broad brush overviews I have heard, there seems to be a large gap between the fiscal analyses done by the Peterson administration and those done by Township officials. While I do believe that reasonable people can look at the same set of facts and still come to different conclusions about quality of service, the old adage "numbers don’t lie" implies that perhaps not everyone is looking at the same numbers. Why is that?

Who will determine equity in distribution of assets and resources? Tax dollars raised locally in a system where people in different localities are taxed differently have paid for many of the physical assets that would supposedly become the property of everyone in the County under the new system. The Marion County Sheriff has said he must add 250 new deputies to bring his level of law enforcement protection to an acceptable standard. Indianapolis Works proponents say 

that combining the Sheriff’s department and IPD will eliminate that need. Does this mean that IPD currently has 250 extra personnel that it doesn’t really need?

And what of our fire departments? During the last decade in my own township, we have undergone a sometimes emotional and certainly financially painful process in turning three outstanding volunteer fire departments into a single paid department. This has been a daunting metamorphosis and we have come out on the other side with a changed system of which we are very proud and that still has strong roots and support in its Township origins. Why should we say to those who have worked so hard to accomplish this and to those who have footed the bill that we must now take the fruits of their efforts and put them through yet another change that will further remove them from the local service they sought to maintain?

Indianapolis has traditionally been a city that considers smaller, more locally based government better able to represent its constituency. The Indianapolis Works proposal seems to hold an interesting dichotomy in that it suggests it will create a more efficient government by reducing duplicative management structures and streamlining services, resulting in a smaller government. At the same time, the proposal will eliminate some locally elected offices, thereby significantly increasing the ratio of voters to publicly chosen representatives. Our choice may be fewer officeholders and management support staff, but less access to those officials.

Perhaps the largest, overriding question that should be asked is what kind of public process will be established to ensure that a critical and probative evaluation of this plan can be conducted by the average citizen? I expect that somewhere along the way a citizen's panel or "Blue Ribbon Task Force" will be formed. But will that gathering be just another committee that will be presented with select information that will lead to rubber-stamping a predetermined conclusion? Or will this committee have true access to the records, resources and detail necessary to truly understand finances and service levels, from what the total long range debt is to which government department is paying the most for a ream of paper? Will there be an opportunity to weigh customer service opinions against dollars spent? What kind of opportunities will be provided for the public at large to comment and will those comments be received in time to consider their import before a final decision is made? This is a debate that must take place in a forum of public participation and examination of information unequaled in the halls of our City government.

There is no doubt that Indianapolis faces some very intimidating financial hurdles. There is no doubt that SOMETHING must be done or our city will soon move past crisis to bankruptcy. Are we a City where the demand for services has finally out-stripped our current revenue streams or are we being asked to refinance the mistakes of the past? I believe it is foolish and ill-considered to rush into making a decision. After all it took us forty years to get here.

I am by nature someone who does not accept changes easily. And I do not believe that bigger is always better. If you sense from this article that I am skeptical about this plan to further combine City and Township government, you are correct. If I am to accept, even embrace this change, then I must be convinced that it will not simply extend the status quo and perpetuate the events of the past that have led our City to this financial crisis. I want to know that our government will work BETTER, regardless of whose plan we follow. Right now, I AM NOT convinced. But I AM going to start reading that stack on my desk.

Cathy Burton