Morton, Morton–you, of all people, a Pollyanna? It’s still possible, you say, for Indiana mayors to mount a coordinated legislative campaign to achieve local control? Indiana cities have been trying to get home rule for as long as I can remember, with very limited success.
Morton, Morton–you, of all people, a Pollyanna? It’s still possible, you say, for Indiana mayors to mount a coordinated legislative campaign to achieve local control? Indiana cities have been trying to get home rule for as long as I can remember, with very limited success.
Even conceding the constraints imposed by the state, however, mayors do run their cities, and our next mayor will run Indianapolis. The mayor provides civic leadership, sets the tone of public discourse, articulates a vision and offers programs to implement that vision. The mayor sets the public policy agenda. If that were not the case, it wouldn’t make any difference who held the office. And it isn’t simply a matter of political party affiliation, either; the priorities of the City, and the tone of public debate, differed significantly under Bill Hudnut and Steve Goldsmith.
The mayor has considerable power to favor one set of priorities over another. That reality underlies the cynicism of people like Fred Fetid who believe that public policy gets purchased with campaign donations. The next mayor needs to convince Fred that city government cares about him. The next mayor must bring us together.
Indianapolis is part of the increasing "niching" of America: commercial enterprises deal with market segments; politicians respond to special interests; even the daily newspaper prints different editions for different neighborhoods. We have lost sight of a central reality: we are all in this together. What happens in any part of our city affects the rest of us in a multitude of ways, tangible and intangible. When we retreat to our respective neighborhoods, churches, or social groups, we lose civic synergy: the pride of joint enterprise, the sense of belonging to a larger whole. There is a difference between a city and an accidental agglomeration of adjacent neighborhoods.
If we are to regain that communal identity and restore that sense of civic pride, the next mayor must encourage the broadest possible participation in the civic enterprise. It is no longer possible–if it ever was–to administer a municipality from the top down. Cities that work today are cities whose citizens feel the ownership that comes from meaningful involvement in the institutions that shape city life. The next mayor must encourage the participation, and value the contributions, of all our citizens.
Politics at its best is the art of building consensus, and that means recognizing the importance of process. Changes implemented without consensus and civic trust don’t last. Because trust is a byproduct of dialogue and collaboration, the next mayor must preside over an open and forthcoming administration, recognizing that every question is not a criticism and every criticism is not an attack..
Indianapolis is a fundamentally sound city, with thoughtful and involved civic leadership, a robust nonprofit sector, impressive public institutions, and the fortunate habit–fostered by Unigov–of thinking of ourselves as an urban whole. Whether we use those assets to rebuild our sense of community or allow our divisions to overwhelm us will depend in large measure on whom we elect to run this city.