The Reorganization Plan’s Potential Negative Impact on Future Local Elections
By: Bill Jeffers, Vanderburgh County Surveyor
On January 11, 2011, the Evansville–Vanderburgh County Reorganization Committee delivered its final Plan of Organization to the Vanderburgh County Commissioners and the Evansville City Council. At the county commissioners meeting on the same day, Lloyd Winnecke, Commission President, suggested the three commissioners take a month to look over the plan, and then hold a joint meeting with the city council to have their concerns and questions about the plan addressed by members of the reorganization committee. Mr. Winnecke also suggested another joint meeting with the city council at which the public may give input, after which both legislative bodies can modify the plan based on the feedback from the public, elected officials, and committee members.
When one considers the vociferous and copious feedback heard at the reorganization committee’s many public hearings, the anticipated mass of public comments on the reorganization plan might exceed the endurance of county commissioners and city council members at a single public hearing. But since Commissioner Winnecke wants to initiate public discussion of the plan, and a full month has passed since the committee delivered it, let the discussions begin. After all, the more they hear up front, the less they must mull over later.
One part of the plan that should concern both voters and municipal officials is the chronology of elections for mayor and common council mandated by the plan. When invited by the reorganization committee to present specific recommendations for a model of consolidated city-county government, Mayor Jerry Abramson (Louisville, Ky.), gave impassioned and concise advice regarding the benefits of non-partisan elections of municipal officeholders. Yet after a modicum of initial enthusiasm for non-partisan elections, the reorganization committee opted instead for partisan elections of local officials, other than judges and school board members who already are non-partisan.
However, when one considers fact, there just is no reasonable argument for national partisan politics to influence municipal elections. And since Indiana laws specify the duties of elected officials, and each official swears to follow the law and carry out those duties, why should national party philosophies influence local elections or stain municipal offices? Moreover, unless they declare a political party on their campaign literature, it seems that the more successful and popular local officeholders are pretty much indistinguishable with regard to national party affiliations.
If the plan included Mayor Abramson’s recommendation for non-partisan elections, that also would remove the undesirable impact of straight ticket voting on municipal government, because then candidates more likely would win or lose on their own merit rather than blind allegiance to party politics. In fact, non-partisan elections might benefit municipal candidates by allowing them more freedom to attend a broader array of political and civic group functions as do the candidates for judge and school board. So, is Evansville truly not ready to outgrow its addiction to partisan municipal elections?
Now even if, and especially if, partisan elections remain part of the reorganization plan, the city council, the county commissioners, and the voters had better look long and hard at the plan’s mandated chronology of elections. As currently written, the plan requires the initial election of mayor and common council at the first general election following the voters’ approval of the referendum, with subsequent municipal elections every four years. Since the reorganization committee’s lawyer tells us the first possible spot for the merger referendum is on the 2012 ballot, that means the first election for mayor and council would be 2014, if the referendum passes. Thereby, the plan mandates a chronology of municipal elections coincidental with “off-presidential†years. So, think about what negative impact national politics had on local elections in 2006, and especially 2010.
Municipal elections should be held in odd-numbered years to promote a separation between national party politics and local government affairs. And municipal government should evolve away from national political influences by moving to non-partisan elections. When they hold their joint meetings, the county commissioners and city council hopefully will hear constructive input from the public and local officials on these and other issues, and will either modify the plan for the better or reject it altogether.
Bill Jeffers
“However, when one considers fact, there just is no reasonable argument for national partisan politics to influence municipal elections. And since Indiana laws specify the duties of elected officials, and each official swears to follow the law and carry out those duties, why should national party philosophies influence local elections or stain municipal offices? Moreover, unless they declare a political party on their campaign literature, it seems that the more successful and popular local officeholders are pretty much indistinguishable with regard to national party affiliations.” (Bill Jeffers)
* * * * * * * * * *
Bill: I think most local political observers would agree that Mayor Weinzapfel falls, or at least at one time fell, under the heading of “popular local officeholder”.
I also think most local political observers know about the campaign funds Weinzapfel directed to national office seekers from his own war-chest.
I am reversing your statement here and asking if there is a reasonable argument to be made for municipal partisan politics to influence national elections?
__
I read Jeffers’s comment about popular local politicians in a more general sense, and was reminded of mayors like Russel Lloyd, Sr. and Frank McDonald, Jr.
If you wish to reverse the argument, then give me a specific benefit Evansville has enjoyed in return for Mayor Weinszapfel’s campaign fund transfers to national candidates.
Build America Bonds? But the thrust of my comment was that there is really no way to stop the political money from flowing in both directions.
I actually agree with Jeffers that “there just is no reasonable argument for national partisan politics to influence municipal elections”, especially from a taxpayer point of view. There is no denying that it goes on though. I mean, just look at the Chicago situation and all the White House connections.
___
Bill: The term “non-partisan” might have a warm sound to it, but the reality on the ground sometimes is a very different animal.
I am reminded of a race where the non-partisan candidate gave only one meet and greet before the election. The fortunate organization receiving that attention was a local labor union with offices very close to the Civic Center. Before that meeting, signs announcing the candidates run for office were in short supply. Immediately after that meeting signs appeared everywhere in the candidates district. That certainly must have been an impassioned and moving speech the candidate gave at that meeting.
__
True. That kind of thing happens.
“And municipal government should evolve away from national political influences by moving to non-partisan elections.” (Bill Jeffers)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
As long as there are such things as “unfunded federal mandates”, moving away from national politics will not happen.
Local politicians should be local-centered and liberated from party affiliation to facilitate becoming reactionary against assinine federal policy without being called to account by party heirarchy.
I want to thank Bill Jeffers for pushing for public discussion of this very important issue being thrust upon us.
My observation is that there is far too much power concentrated in the office of mayor of Evansville. Much of that power must be stripped out of that office and handed over to elected municipal council members. The mayor, if that office is retained (I would prefer a city manager), should not have a vote that is in any way weighted any heavier than the votes of the individual elected council members. That type of system would allow the mayor to go ahead and propose what he may, but it would require a majority vote to move it forward. I also believe that on projects over a certain dollar amount you could, and should, require a super-majority of votes to move it forward.
__
The idea of a city manager form of government was discussed in subcommittee during the reorganization deliberations. But the forces that want a strong mayor form of local government prevailed, obviously, and the reorganization plan on the table is heavily weighted in favor of a strong mayor with significant powers over both the council, and through the chief budget officer (aka, city controller) essentially will control even the constitutional offices such as sheriff, clerk of courts, treasurer, auditor, etc. Now why do yo think it shook out that way, and which special interests do you think it favors?
I gave my views on that at a public meeting of the County Commissioners and I am sure that no one in the room or watching on television that evening was in doubt about my position.
This is nothing more than the biggest power-grab by Jonathan Weinzapfel and his party that has ever been attempted on Vanderburgh county voters!
Can he pull it off? Well those boyish looks and his George Washington University JD has brought him this far, but there has been a cost: the public has his number now.
__
Press, power grab yes, but by the local Democrat party, not going to happen under this plan of consolidation.
Under Evansville-Vanderburgh merger, the resulting countywide demographic strongly favors the local Republican party as evidenced by all the more recent election results and census data. The higher likelihood in future countywide elections will be the success of Repblican candidates for commissioner, merger mayor, and countywide metro council at large.
The only local Democrat I can name at this time who could win countywide merger mayor is Eric Williams, and there are very few Democrats who in my opinion can take the 1st Ward (historically essential to a city-wide victory by a Democrat), Center Township (no friggin’ way for a Democrat) and Scott Township (only Democrats to ever win Scott in my memory are Bob Willner and Eric Williams). But then, I could be wrong.
Oh, and as to a “Weinszapfel Regime” power grab, I don’t really think an Eric Williams for Countywide Mayor success will be an extension of Weinszapfel insider power.
Most people, if you ask them what neighborhood they live in, will respond quickly. I think that sense of belonging to a certain area within the county should be translated into a redrawing of the voting districts, so that the elected council members have that same sense of belonging to the area they are representing.
Did not happen except in the broadest and most watered down sense of your concept. Actually, we are lucky to get the 8 districts proposed by the reorganization plan, because there are committee members who represent special interests that would’ve preferred 6 districts to minimize the number of council members they have to with.
(… to minimize the number of council members they have to DEAL with.)
Consolidation of Power, is that a Good Thing?
I am not convinced by this flawed proposal.
Comments are closed.