One thing is certain: the next four years at the Indiana Statehouse will be interesting. How it all turns out will depend upon which of the two Mitch Daniels ends up being governor.
One thing is certain: the next four years at the Indiana Statehouse will be interesting. How it all turns out will depend upon which of the two Mitch Daniels ends up being governor.
During his State of the State address, the governor made several points that deserved applause. Who can argue with the assertion that real changes in state government are overdue? Only our micro-managing legislature could disagree with the statement that local government needs more authority to make its own decisions—local officials have been hamstrung by a lack of home rule for as long as most of us can remember. And Governor Daniels deserves a medal for having the guts to say what so many in both parties have ignored for far too long: sometimes, taxes do need to be increased.
And yet…as I have watched the new administration’s first steps, I have seen some disquieting parallels to Indianapolis’ late, unlamented Goldsmith administration. Take the proposal to sell off assets. In pursuit of “privatization,” Goldsmith sold Parks’ mowing equipment and contracted with private businesses to do the mowing. When contractors raised prices, the city was between a rock and a hard place—it’s hard to say “fine, we’ll do it ourselves” when that means repurchasing a lot of expensive equipment. Perhaps the state has too many vehicles; perhaps it needn’t own a toll road. But we need to be sure that today’s quick fix doesn’t lead to tomorrow’s unnecessary costs.
There is also the shared belief that government is a business, and that successful businessmen with no prior experience in government can run it most effectively. You don’t create efficient state agencies by failing to recognize the important differences between public and private organizations, or by disdaining those who have chosen to work in the public sector. The Governor’s recent letter to state employees offended so many of them because that disdain came through loud and clear. You don’t get devoted service out of people by telling them things are going to be different now because—unlike your predecessors—you expect results.
Perhaps the most troubling parallel is a tendency to see laws as impediments to be overcome rather than rules to be followed. The legislature created set terms for people holding certain positions on Boards and Commissions for a reason. If the Governor thinks set terms aren’t necessary, he should propose changing the law, and explain why he thinks regulatory agencies should be run by people he can control. If federal Environmental regulations are too stringent, he should challenge them, but while they are in effect, state employees should not be asked to rethink their enforcement.
If local school officials who are answerable to local voters cannot be trusted to spend local tax dollars on school improvements of their choice, the governor should ask the legislature to give him control over those decisions—and he should explain why he is making this exception to his proposed expansion of local control.
Indiana’s prospects depend on which Mitch ends up being “our man.”