Represent The People Not The Power

9
Represent The People Not The Power
End Un-Funded Mandates By Big State Government On Counties

By Ann Ennis

In 2014, HB 1006 created a wave of change in Indiana’s criminal code.  One change expanded the levels of felony crimes from four to six.  The intent was to reduce state prison population and costs, and to prevent recidivism by putting non-violent, first-time and less career-criminal offenders into community-based treatment programs – the new levels allowed for different sentencing.  Shorter sentences are now served in the home county of the crime.

That is a good idea in principle but suffers much due to poor research by state representatives before Indy passed the law.  My research shows that, per county officials in Gibson and Vanderburgh counties, no funding from the state followed the increase in community corrections and county jail population.

As per an article in The Indiana Economic Digest, 12-27-2014 by Mark Wilson (of Evansville Courier & Press), Judge Wayne Trockman of Vanderburgh County, noted that the intent was to allow nonviolent offenders to stay in local jail, treatment and training programs and not send them into the mega-system of the state prisons. 

Wilson writes,  “Although legislators may have intended for the changes to direct more offenders away from state prisons and into the care of local jails and programs, additional resources will be needed to make that work.”

According to the elected officials whom I spoke with, the “additional resources” did not come.

Food, beds, and treatment for offenders are now being paid by the counties across the state, including all counties in District 64.  Staff safety may be compromised because of more community-housed offenders with no more staff or funds to care for and supervise them.  And all the while, the state officials can say they are saving the Indiana Department of Corrections money.

On our backs.

Current Representatives too often vote for bills like 2014’s House Bill 1006 and for other big state-mandates, such as ISTEP, IREAD, and centralized expensive corporate test grading.  Why?  Because they rarely meet with their district’s other elected leaders to get advice.

I have been told that, “if state representatives would meet with their county government officials before voting on these type of laws, so they can get advice from the county finance managers, unfunded mandates would end.”

Isn’t a representative supposed to represent the district and its voters?

Why do representatives represent the Indianapolis power machine instead?

I support helping non-violent, non-career offenders to change and grow, but not by saving the state money while making our counties pay. Stop un-funded mandates by Indy on our counties.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

9 COMMENTS

  1. Does this candidate know where the state gets the money to send to the counties? Apparently her research didn’t go any deeper than articles written by C&P writers? And if she really wants “local control” over our schools, shouldn’t she be running for U.S. Congress?
    I’ve seen nothing but platitudes and talking points from this candidate. Did the state party recruit her in hopes of ridding themselves of the conservative Washburne?

    • She was a very vocal voice for former EVSC Superintendent Vincent Bertram’s $150. Million bricks and mortar “strategic initiative” that was a way over the top looting of local taxpayers wallets supported by the local Chamber.

      Did the school corporation need to do something about the old North High School? Yes. Did they need to turn that specific need into an omnibus spending program that included something for every school in the district? No they did not. Much of the additional spending went for new gymnasiums, hardly something was likely to designed to elevate the districts academic scores.

      There is a possibility that if Tom Washburne lands a position on the Indiana Supreme Court that Ann Ennis’ chances of getting elected would improve. : (

      • New gyms were a result of Federal mandates requiring equal facilities for females and males. I believe it was called Title XX, or something like that.

        • It was more nanny state programs at taxpayer expense, under the guise of “improving public schools”. What was actually mandated was that any new constructed gyms had to be built detached from the other school buildings, and that they had to have separate male/female/conflicted locker room facilities. The reason stated was so the facility could be used for other functions by the public. Like midnight basketball and the like.

          The EVSC was not mandated to build any gyms during Bertram’s tenure, only to follow the above guideline IF they decided to build a new gym.

      • This is what Ann Ennis was supporting then. Would she be any different nowadays?

Comments are closed.