On September 23 in Jasper, the three candidates for the office of Governor, were asked a question pertaining to township government. In an effort to assist township officials in their decision, following is the transcript of the question and the answers which were given.

As you all are probably aware, the Commission on Local Government Reform has made recommendations for streamlining Indiana’s local government. One of those recommendations includes the elimination of township government and the transfer of its responsibilities to the county executive. Do you support the elimination of township government or leaving it in its current form?

Jill Long Thompson:

Well Governor Daniels has talked a great deal about reform and, as you know, has come forth with some recommendations, but I actually disagree with his approach. I am much more in favor of a decentralized approach, as opposed to a centralized approach. Just as I think we can make better decisions at the state level than at the federal level in many instances, I think local governance can work.
And I do support township government. It’s probably because I come from a farming background from a rural community and I understand the importance of having that direct contact and accountability with local officials. So I am a supporter of township government.

I also think it’s important for us to make sure that we are as efficient and effective in delivering services. I have some background in government reform from when I served at the United States Department of Agriculture and we engaged in a major reform there. But I also think that government reform ought to stop—ought to start—in the governor’s office. And when we have a governor who talks about trying to save dollars but then is using the state airplane, that is funded by Indiana taxpayers, to fly from his vacation home in West Virginia and to fly to and from political events, I think that’s where we need the reform. That’s why I’m running for governor.

Andrew Horning:

Well I’m going to answer that kind of at the end of my question. And I hate to do that because I think it’s important to shift the paradigm just a little bit. I think the problem that we’ve had is that politicians have not obeyed the laws that protect us from them. I’m the only guy who’s called a Constitutionalist. And sometimes that’s said with a hiss as if it’s a bad thing. The recognition behind being a Constitutionalist is that everybody is not. And that when we’ve got politicians who agree that the constitutions are not what we are doing right now at all, we have a problem. When they talk about amending it, why amend what they flout? If they’re going to break the law, why not just start obeying the thing and we wouldn’t have the problems, the necessity of talking about amending this thing. I guess my focus is really getting you guys to understand what our Constitution says. If you look at my website, it’s horningforgovernor.com, and look at my platform, it is the Indiana Constitution. Read my comments on it and see if you think that we need to tinker around with the design. We do not.

And just to answer your question directly, I do not believe it’s wise to shovel more power into fewer and fewer unelected hands. It’s just not a good idea where politicians are concerned.

But I think the real issue is- are we going to be a nation of laws or are we going to be a nation of despots? We really are at that kind of hinge point right now. And I’m not worried about anybody on this stage as far as Indiana government. We have bigger problems that are facing us. And I want somebody who’s going to face down the federal government and insist upon federal government because whoever becomes governor is going to swear an oath to both the Constitution of Indiana and the United States of America; and states—the United States—are the owners of federalism.

Mitch Daniels:

Yes, I recall. Thomas, thank you for your question and for your service. What I’m about to say about reform is said with full admiration for all those who are serving in these jobs now. These are not my recommendations, this is a bi-partisan commission of people with no axes to grind that we asked to recommend to us all whether a system that is 150 years old is right for the 21st century in Indiana. Now many Hoosiers didn’t know it before that report, but we have more elected politicians in this state than almost anybody- more than 11,000. These things we call townships do not exist in most of the states in this country. It is one reason property taxes got out of control in our state and therefore, the recommendations that that group brought us ought to be taken very, very seriously. I will tell you that I do believe that it’s a good idea to move certain functions from the township trustees that we have known to an elected—an elected, Andrew—county executive who is accountable.

Today it is very hard for a taxpayer to know who to give credit to or to whom to assign the blame. You know, the complete opposition to this whole reform isolates Ms. Thompson in a very unusual way. This is something Democrats, Republicans, and people in between, newspapers of every description in the state have been crying for- for decades. And we won’t do all the things, by any means, that were in that Kernan-Shepherd Report. But I hope whoever’s governor will embrace at least the spirit of reform and work with the next legislature to move Indiana out of the 19th century and into the 21st.

Rebuttals

Jill Long Thompson:

Well I believe very strongly in government by the people. And because I come from a rural community, I think I have a real appreciation for the importance of having that connectivity to those who represent us. And I think centralizing government generally does not work, whether it’s centralized at the national level or at the state level. And I think that we ought to work to include more people in the governmental process, rather than fewer people. But I also believe that people at the local level have a much better understanding of what’s going on in their respective communities. And that’s why I believe that Governor Daniel’s approach to reform is simply not workable. One size does not fit all. What might work for a highly urbanized county will not necessarily work for a more
rural county.

Andrew Horning:

Can I just suggest that you don’t need politicians as much as you think you do? I think if you look to see how Kiwanis and churches and Habitat for Humanity and other voluntary organizations have a voluntary collection plate, and they do good work. You know, these are the organizations that used to be the health, education, and welfare of our nation. They used to run schools and hospitals, and they were the ones who ran the charity schools. This used to work. Now to say that this is backwards is really to go back 3,000 years before we had this magnificent system that people have lauded for centuries now. You know, for the last couple hundred years there have been other nations looking at the United States and saying, “I wish we had that.” And they came here in boatloads. Vietnamese boat people came with nothing. And they became famous about coming here with nothing and getting rich. That can happen again.

Mitch Daniels:

It’s interesting to note that there are 2,600 units with the power to tax the property of Hoosiers. Many of them unelected- not elected by anybody. There is duplication, there is overlap, there is waste everywhere. And it is not more accountable government, it’s less so. This is not my opinion.

This is the opinion of people who have looked at this from both parties in every vantage point for a long, long time, and we ought to make some forward progress. To take the position of my opponents that first of all, my one opponent, not only against any reform of this mess, but also against property tax reduction, which is, I believe, the one way—by capping what the governments can take from taxpayers—we will finally, I believe, propel some reform. I hope it is bottom-up; not one size fits all. But we ought not stand still. It’s a very, very backward point of view.