![[Under Construction]](images/undercon.gif)
How they see it in Indianapolis ...
"Recommendation #1: Establish a single-person elected county chief executive."
"Current structure of county government is antiquated, having been designed for the realities of the state more than a century and a half ago. Today’s challenges warrant a clear, modern and streamlined executive, legislative and administrative structure. No business would hire three executives to direct its activities and finances. Similarly, a county led by a three-member board is hampered in being responsive to its citizens and taking the definitive actions necessary to address the complex nature of today’s economy and public services.
We recommend the establishment of a single elected county executive to provide a single point of leadership, contact and accountability. This recommendation can be accomplished through statutory change alone. In 91 counties, this change requires transferring the executive responsibilities of the board of commissioners to a single elected official and expanding the legislative responsibilities of the county council. In Marion County, the board of commissioners currently is an ex-officio duty assigned to other elected officeholders. We recommend, in this case, that these responsibilities be transferred to the mayor.
This change is critical to the success of many of our subsequent recommendations. In light of that, we recommend that the transition to the new executive and legislative structure take effect no later than the elections of 2010, with the newly elected executives and legislative bodies taking office in January 2011."
The rest of the story ...
This recommendation starts with the faulty premise that county government structure is somehow flawed because it was established more than 150 years ago. The same could be said for our national government, for which the structure was established by the U.S. Constitution, effective in 1789. The fact that our state and national governments, by and large, have successfully operated for such long periods of time at least suggests that very careful thought should be given before making wholesale changes to them.
The authors argue that a "clear, modern and streamlined" county government structure is warranted. In support of that argument they trot out the observation that "no business would hire three executives to direct its activities and finances." They offer the wholly unsupported assertion that a three-member board of commissioners is somehow "hampered" in being responsive to citizens and acting in today’s complex world. From that, they conclude that a single, elected county executive is the solution.
What the authors utterly fail to recognize is that government is not a business. While no reasonable person would suggest that it should not concern itself with the efficient use of limited resources for the benefit of all citizens, the nature of representative government includes some inherent inefficiencies. Most notable is that, unlike a business, government is a servant of the will of the people. The people retain the right to participate in its activities, and not just through elections. Among other things, the people served by government have rights to participate, to join in public debates, to petition, to observe public meetings and to view public records. Few, if any businesses would welcome or even permit such public participation and scrutiny.
Viewing government as a business, the authors conclude that a single, elected county administrator is preferable to an elected, three-member board of commissioners. Apparently, they feel that one head is better than three. And apparently they feel that citizens are unable to deal with or possibly even grasp the concept that there is a three-person board that is a "point of leadership, contact and accountability," and each of those members can be held accountable for his or her actions, reflected by the votes they take and the statements they make. It must be pointed out that businesses frequently operate with boards of directors, presidents, chief executive officers and chief financial officers. Apparently, business people can deal with the concept of more than one person managing things and being accountable. So can citizens.
The authors ignore an inevitable result of a single individual serving as an administrator: The decisions will not be made in an open meeting and there will be no public debate before they are made. Public participation will be removed from the decision-making process. The public will be placed in the back seat role of after-the-fact approval or criticism. This citizen-take-the-hindmost approach to government is surely not what the founders of our state or our nation had in mind, and it is contrary to sustained efforts to insure public access to and public participation in the public’s business.