Category Archives: Local Government

How Is As Important As What…

Those of us who regularly (obsessively?) follow politics and government are currently fixated on the federal administration, and for obvious reasons: every day ending with a y is a day when the Trump caravan of fools and clowns threatens to destroy America domestically and internationally. It’s like driving past a horrific accident–you can’t help but rubberneck.

As understandable as that focus is, however, it doesn’t relieve us of the obligation to ensure the proper operation of local government agencies. (In that context, permit me to indulge my repeated lament about low levels of civic literary–most citizens are blissfully unaware of the existence of local government entities other than the Mayor’s office, the City-County Council and perhaps a zoning board.)

A couple of friends of mine have recently complained that Indiana’s legislature isn’t the only body that doesn’t stay in its lane.

Morton Marcus and Clarke Kahlo have mounted complaints of “mission creep” about our local bond bank–adding a further criticism of the refusal of its board to allow citizens’ testimony and/or complaints at meetings.

As Morton pointed out in a recent column for State Affairs Indiana, the bond bank has an important function–its mission is to issue bonds to pay for critical infrastructure, the capital improvements that local governments pay for over the terms of their useful lives.

That function is explicitly set out in the organization’s mission statement.

Since 2024, the Bond Bank has funded Indiana’s Arts Council. Morton and Clarke Kahlo object to that decision–not, they emphasize, because they disagree with the importance of the Arts Council. They both emphatically support funding the Arts Council with local tax dollars–just not through the bond bank. They attended the Bond Bank board’s most recent meeting to question that line item; however, they were not allowed to address the matter. Or any matter.

The two of them argue that the way government operates–how it chooses to effectuate appropriate governmental activities–is important. As I used to tell my students, in our system, the how is just as important as the what. There are numerous reasons for such a principle; an important one is that when local agencies stick to their missions, citizens can more easily monitor them.

Morton and Clarke argue that the Bond Bank should stick to its mission of funding infrastructure– things like improving our roads and government buildings, waterways, “the transit system, perhaps the Internet, the utilities, all those capital investments on which the residents and workers of this city depend.” As Morton wrote in his column, “If the Civil government wants to support the Arts, and I strongly believe they should, the money should come by vote of the people’s elected representatives, the Council, upon recommendation by the Mayor.”

It turns out that the Arts Council doesn’t just get $500,000 from the Bond Bank. It gets another $500,000 from the CIB, and another sum from the Department of Parks and Recreation. Whatever the justifications for the CIB and Parks Department gifts, Clarke and Morton argue that the Bond Bank’s funding is inconsistent with its mission.

In a written statement, Clarke Kahlo quoted Indiana’s 2020 Civic Education Task Force recommendation that “Since its founding, the United States democracy has relied upon having an informed and active citizenry to maintain our system of ideals and beliefs. In order to be a government by, of and for the people, the populace needs to be engaged knowingly in civic processes.” The thrust of their joint objection is that the lack of transparency and the refusal to allow public comment undermines the opportunity for necessary and informed civic engagement.

The objection raised by these two citizens may seem irrelevant or picky at a time when so much of our governance is under assault. After all, both of them support funding the Arts Council, just not in this particular way. But dismissing their objection would be an error, because it focuses on an important element of democratic systems–what we might call “mission control.” A few days ago, I shared copious evidence that Indiana’s legislature consistently usurps the prerogatives of local, municipal lawmakers. Morton and Clarke are pointing to a similar mission blurring at a local government agency.

In both cases, the failure to honor restraints erodes the ability of citizens to monitor those in authority.

These trespasses obscure information and discourage civic engagement. Failures of governmental guardrails may be most prominent nationally, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strengthen them locally.

Comments

Protecting The Right To Vote

One of the (far too many) newsletters I get is one from Democracy Docket. Founded by lawyer Marc Elias in 2020, the platform is dedicated to information, analysis and opinion about voting rights and elections. It’s especially focused on the multiple lawsuits Elias and his firm have brought against the Trump administration–most of which they’ve won.

A recent newsletter was a bit different: it was a list of suggested laws that would protect voting rights.

The newsletter presented the list for consideration by Blue states, presumably because the adoption of such protections would be highly unlikely in Red states like Indiana. (Actually, I think a strategically-smart campaign to protect the vote might do better than the organization thinks…at least, it would be worth a try. Opposing people’s right to cast a ballot is a dicey position–at least, it should be.)

So what are the laws that Democracy Docket believes would strengthen voting rights?

The first is somewhat surprising–passing a statute protecting the right to vote. There is no right to vote in the federal constitution, and although some state constitution include such protections, Elias tells us that “too often these rights are ill-defined or have been limited by past legal precedent.” An explicit, statutory right to vote would correct the ambiguities.

The second is common sense; we need to get over the “signature matching” that states employ to (theoretically) authenticate  mail-in votes. As Elias writes,

The problems with this approach are serious. Every election, hundreds of thousands of lawful ballots are discarded because an election official decides that, in their opinion, two signatures do not match. We need to ban this harmful practice.

First, there is no requirement that a voter maintain a consistent signature to exercise the right to vote. Many voters, particularly young voters, do not keep a consistent signature across documents. With more voters registering on tablets, this problem is worsening with each passing election.

Second, there is simply no science supporting the current practice of having election workers compare a single signature to the image of a specimen signature on file. Election officials are not experts in signature comparison, and true experts have repeatedly testified that the methods used by states to compare signatures cannot support the current practice.

This proposal really resonated with me, because my own signature has changed immensely since I began using the computer for most of my communications. Even on the rare occasion when I have to write a check rather than paying online, my current chicken scratches bear little resemblance to the handwriting of my younger days.

Third on the list should be a no-brainer. Count every ballot postmarked before election day, even if they arrive a few days later due to postal delays. Voters who follow the rules shouldn’t be disenfranchised because of post office delays.

Number Four will never get passed. Elias wants states to guarantee voters that they won’t have to wait in line more than 30 minutes. He’s absolutely correct when he points out that long lines discourage voters and disproportionately penalize voters who can least afford time off work, but there are numerous reasons such a rule would be impractical–everything from machine breakdowns to unanticipated rates of turnout could make compliance a nightmare. Extending early voting and voting hours might be a more practical way to reduce wait times.

The fifth proposal is a ban on third-party voter challenges and other forms of what Elias calles “vigilantism.”

No one should have their registration or right to vote challenged by a random stranger they do not know and have never met. Yet that is what is happening in too many places.

Republicans have built private voter databases used to encourage third-party activists and election vigilantes to submit spreadsheets of voters they want removed from the rolls or hassled at polling places. This practice should be banned and outlawed.

Along the same lines, his sixth proposal is to impose civil and criminal penalties for voter harassment and intimidation, and the seventh and final item on his voting wishlist is to strengthen the vote certification process. As we’ve seen in the Trump “big lie” era, that process has been weaponized– local election offices are increasingly filled with election deniers, and people serving on county election boards are being pressured not to certify accurate results.

Some of these measures would be difficult to pass in Red states, but assuming a vigorous grass-roots campaign, others might actually be adopted. Even if they weren’t, such a campaign would force wider recognition of the barriers people face to having their votes counted.

Worth considering…..

Comments

From The Street To A Home

This blog typically addresses national issues. I’m not apologizing for that–the Trump administration poses an existential threat to the America most of us want to retain. Its numerous evils are–to use Joe Biden’s characterization–a “BFD.” But the fact that our national structures are under assault doesn’t mean that local issues have disappeared or become unimportant.

And the fact that the American Idea is under assault by a Christian nationalist movement doesn’t mean that we should overlook–or diminish the importance of– the good works of genuine Christians and other people of faith.

Which brings me to Indianapolis, and the laudable work being done by GIMA–the Greater Indianapolis Multifaith Alliance, and its “Streets to Homes” initiative, a multifaith call to end chronic homelessness in Indianapolis.

GIMA began as an interfaith effort to make Indianapolis a more collaborative and inclusive city, to make it a “more just and livable place.” In stark contrast to MAGA’s faux Christianity, the faith leaders who came together in GIMA represent the city’s diverse religious traditions, with the stated intent to form what the organization calls “a sacred friendship,” and to collaborate on civic projects that serve the common good of greater Indianapolis.

I first encountered GIMA when the organization was focused on Indianapolis’ eviction crisis, and was impressed both by its  judicious approach to that issue and the breadth of the organization’s religious membership. Representatives of central Indiana’s Black and White churches, synagogues and Mosques exhibited a fellowship and respect that have been glaringly missing from our national conversations– thanks primarily to MAGA’s determined Othering. They identified a civic problem and came together to address it.

The organization describes “Streets to Homes” as follows:

Following the successful community action led by the Black Church Coalition, Indy Action Coalition, and the Validus Movement, The Greater Indianapolis Multifaith Alliance (GIMA) is inviting congregations across Central Indiana to join a multifaith effort to support the Streets to Home Indy Initiative – a community- driven campaign to provide permanent housing and supportive services for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. This initiative is part of a broader campaign to provide not just shelter, but lasting homes and supportive services for those most in need.

The goal of Streets to Homes is to house 350 currently unsheltered neighbors, and to do so by June of 2026 “through an evidence-based model that includes housing and supportive services.”

As the website explains,

Besides being the right thing to do? 20 years of data demonstrates that providing stability to these neighbors sets them on a path to upward mobility and independence, which ultimately strengthens our community, increases public safety, and reduces the economic impact of homelessness.

We can only do this through a community-wide commitment that includes the business community, philanthropic community, faith community, and civic support.

GIMA is asking faith community partners to contribute $270,000 as its part of the philanthropy community’s commitment of $2.7 million. That commitment “joins with equal pledges from the Housing to Recovery Fund and the city of Indianapolis” in what the organization calls “an unprecedented community-wide coalition.”

Rabbi Aaron Spiegel, the Executive Director of GIMA, tells me that area churches have responded with unprecedented generosity. (What he didn’t say–but I will–is that this diverse, interfaith effort has forced Indianapolis’ city government to become far more focused upon the effort to end homelessness than it had previously been.)

As regular readers of this blog know, I am very critical of the performative “Christians” who disdain both the adherents of other religions and “woke” efforts to ameliorate poverty and hopelessness. GIMA’s efforts are a reminder that there are millions of truly good people in every religious community who focus on the admonitions–common to all religions–to love one’s neighbors and to work for social justice. (MAGA to the contrary, it has been my observation that all genuine religiosity is “woke.”)

I would encourage readers who reside here in central Indiana to visit the linked GIMA and Streets to Homes websites. You need not be a believer, or a member of a congregation, to support this initiative, which is an excellent reminder to those of us who are not religious to avoid painting the folks who are with too broad a brush.

Thankfully, genuine Christians aren’t like Micah Beckwith, genuine Jews aren’t like Bibi Netanyahu, and genuine Muslims abhor jihadists. They’re all pretty “woke”– and the rest of us need to remember that.

Comments

That Constitutional Ethic

Thursday, I traveled to Hancock County, to speak at what their community foundation calls a “Collaboration Station.” My assignment was to address–or perhaps commiserate with– local elected and appointed officials who are serving at a time of intense political polarization and hostility–to offer them guidance suggested by relevant academic research.

We covered a lot of ground that isn’t necessary to include in this post, but I think the concluding portion of my presentation is relevant to the discussions that occur here–as well as consistent with the overarching message of the recent No Kings rally–so here’s that portion of my talk.

_________________

Back in 2011, I co-authored a textbook for use in classes on public administration. That textbook was titled American Public Service: Constitutional and Ethical Foundations, and in it, my co-author and I described what we dubbed “The Constitutional Ethic.” We argued that public officials cannot make intelligent policy decisions unless they have a basic understanding of America’s constitutional framework, because government legitimacy and the rule of law require that a government’s operations be consistent with its country’s legal framework.

It was the thesis of our textbook that the U.S. Constitution dictates a very particular approach to public service—that the legal philosophy animating the Constitution and Bill of Rights establishes certain ethical norms. That philosophy starts with the Founders’ belief in limited government. I want to emphasize that—political rhetoric to the contrary–limited government is not the same thing as small government; in our system, government’s authority is supposed to be limited to areas that in our system are deemed properly governmental.

As we wrote in the introduction to that textbook, a public servant’s ability to do a job well depends upon how well that official understands what the relevant rules are, why we have these particular rules rather than others, and why we choose to solve some problems collectively through government action while leaving other problems to individuals and voluntary associations.

Public officials certainly don’t need to be constitutional scholars, but it is necessary that they understand the general principles and values on which this nation built its governing structures, because—as I said before and as I want to emphasize– ethical public service requires performance consistent with those foundational principles and values.

Let me be clear about what that means. Fidelity to our constituent documents requires a basic understanding of the constitutional framework. Public servants in the United States are responsible for discharging their various duties in a manner that is consistent with that framework, consistent with what I sometimes call “the American Idea,” the philosophy that animates our governing and legal structures. That requirement is obviously more or less relevant depending upon your job description—less to a surveyor or engineer, more to law enforcement personnel. But it applies to some extent to all public officials.

I am certainly not the only person to suggest that citizens’ current inability to engage in productive civic conversation is largely an outgrowth of declining trust in our social and political institutions—primarily, although certainly not exclusively, our government. Restoring that trust is critically important if we are going to make our representative democracy work—but in order to trust government, both citizens and political functionaries need to understand what government is and is not supposed to do. We all need to understand how government actors are supposed to behave—in other words, we need to understand what behaviors our particular Constitutional system requires, and what behaviors are inconsistent with that system. (A sound civic education would impart that knowledge; unfortunately, the current emphasis on job skills and STEM has largely displaced citizenship instruction.)

As most of you in this room understand, the choices originally made by this nation’s Founders shaped a very distinctive American culture. Those constitutional choices have shaped our beliefs about personal liberty, and our conceptions of human rights. They’ve framed the way we allocate social duties among governmental, nonprofit and private actors. I think it’s fair to say that those initial Constitutional choices created a distinctively American worldview.

Most Americans fail to understand how incredibly radical the choices made for the then-new United States were for the times. For example, in the new country our Founders established, unlike the situation in countries elsewhere, citizenship wasn’t based upon geography, ethnicity or conquest; instead, it was based on an Idea, a theory of social organization, what Enlightenment philosopher John Locke called a “social contract” and journalist Todd Gitlin has called a “covenant.” Perhaps the most revolutionary element of the American Idea was that our Constitution based citizenship on behavior rather than identity. An individual’s status and rights depended upon how that individual behaved rather than on who he or she was.

Right now, as you all know, there are elements in American society and government trying to ignore or even reverse that fundamental precept. We’ve had stunning Supreme Court decisions that allow government actors to ignore the 4th Amendment’s requirement of probable cause and to detain people based only upon their skin color or language, and we have numerous political figures who insist that White Christians are the only “real Americans” –and that others are not.

Public officials who are focused on providing basic services usually aren’t tempted to distinguish between members of the public on the basis of their identity—local officials pave streets that everyone drives on, pick up garbage from all the homes in a district, fight fires wherever they erupt and so forth. But many of you do hold positions that allow or even require the privileging of some citizens over others, and making those distinctions on the basis of identity—as some political actors at both the state and national level are encouraging you to do—would  violate both the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause and a foundational American ideal. Disadvantaging or firing people based upon opinions they’ve expressed, as some political actors are advocating, would be a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. Obeying such mandates or similar ones, would violate the Constitutional ethic.

My co-author and I had both practiced constitutional law, and at the time we wrote the textbook, we both held professorships in schools of public affairs. We wrote the book, it was adopted by several schools of public management, and we both went on to pursue other projects. To be honest, I hadn’t revisited that textbook for several years, and when I was preparing for this workshop, I pulled it out again– and I will admit I was startled to read some of the supposedly “far-fetched” examples we’d used that were intended to illustrate the relationship between public administration and the Constitution. We explained, for example, that the Constitution and other authorities in our legal system don’t permit American officials to use U.S. troops to address domestic criminal activity; that the Constitution doesn’t permit censorship as a solution for disfavored political opinions; that the Equal Protection Clause wouldn’t permit the reduction of welfare rolls by refusing to feed Black or Hispanic children, and that substantive due process guarantees prevent government from forcing women either to abort or give birth.

Fourteen years later, some of those examples are no longer so far-fetched.

As we acknowledged in that textbook, the American Idea is not monolithic, and it is constantly contested and evolving, but—as we also insisted– it has real content. It rests on considered normative judgments about the proper conduct of public affairs, and it prescribes an ethic that should dictate the behavior of those engaged in public administration and management—even when it is uncomfortable or even dangerous to do so.

So here’s the bottom line: When push comes to shove—when keeping your heads down is no longer an option— the Constitutional ethic must guide you.

These days, that may not be comforting.

Comments

An Intriguing New Non-Party

I’ve frequently posted about the multiple negative effects of Indiana’s extreme gerrymandering. One of the most pernicious of those effects has been voter suppression–the tendency of Democrats and Independents who live in “safe” Republican districts to stay home on election day. If you think the result is foreordained, why bother?

In Indiana, the Democrats’ decision not to bother running candidates in many of those “safe” districts has only increased that disengagement. When there is no competition, we shouldn’t be surprised when there is minimal turnout. And Indiana has long had depressingly low voter turnout–last time I looked, we were near the bottom of all states.

This situation has produced a depressingly widespread opinion that progressive candidates (even moderately progressive, as in not committed crazies or Christian Nationalists) have no chance in Indiana. Donors who support Democrats send their dollars elsewhere; discouraged Democrats don’t bother casting ballots.  (Worse still, in many rural districts, many faithful longtime Republican voters who are unhappy with incumbent officials nevertheless cannot bring themselves to vote for a Democrat.)

A new organization has decided that the basic problem in the Hoosier State is that lack of competition. 

The folks who have organized Independent Indiana looked at the data, and discovered that during the last couple of election cycles, over 200 candidates had run for offices in Indiana as Independents. Of that number, 52% won their races, an astonishing percentage. (In contrast, Democrats won 36% of theirs…)

The goal of Independent Indiana is to encourage and support Independent candidates–and to give voters in those gerrymandered districts a choice. 

The organization recently held an informational meeting, and I attended. After introductory remarks from Nathan Gotsch, the Executive Director, and the introduction of board members and a recent operations hire, Nathan introduced a panel consisting of three mayors who had won their elections as Independents. Their comments were enlightening. 

Tom Saunders had formerly been a Republican state representative; he is now an independent on the Lewisville Town Council. As he explained,
“I felt like my party was leaving me, and I wasn’t happy…Toward the end, my conscience wasn’t agreeing with me. I wasn’t sleeping at night, and it was time to come home.” (Many former Republicans can underscore his discomfort…) As he said, “I think I could have run as an independent and gotten elected to the legislature, but my advisors and the people who gave me money said no.” 

Saunders ran for his city council and won. He also had some harsh words for Republicans who are proposing a mid-cycle gerrymander.

“The worst thing that’s happened to the state is the supermajority where we don’t hear the other side’s concerns.”

“If redistricting happens, I think it does open it up [for independents]. If I was 20 years younger, I would [run for a larger office as an independent. My wife might divorce me, but I would.”

“Republicans need to go back 30 years and look what happened the last time they tried this. Democrats walked out, the plan backfired, and Republicans lost seats. I think it’s a mistake.”

Richard Strick, another panelist, is an Independent who has been mayor of the Republican stronghold of Huntington since 2020. As he told the gathering, “We don’t just need independent candidates. We need independent thinking in both parties — left and right officials who know when to put party aside to do what’s needed. At the end of the day, especially at the local level, it’s about delivering and getting results. People will give you a chance if they think you’re sincere and have their best interest at heart.” He enumerated the benefits of independence, noting “you don’t have to be married to an ideology. I’m 100% responsible for what I say and do.”

The third panelist was Shawna Girgis, who served as the Independent mayor of Bedford from 2008 to 2019. She pointed out that the first time she’d run, Republicans quietly told her they were glad she was in the race. “By my second and third campaigns, people were open about supporting me because they saw the results.” She also noted that running against extremists and ideologues can be a bonus: “Sometimes having people work against you is the best thing that can happen. They’re the wrong people with the wrong message, doing the wrong things consistently. That only helps you.”

You can see a video of the entire event here.

As the new Operations director noted, Independent candidates do best in states where there’s no competition–where there’s one party rule. Even people in the dominant party feel unrepresented. 

That sure describes Indiana, where polls reflect that even most Republican voters are unhappy with the Christian Nationalists and culture warriors who currently dominate our government.

Comments