advertisement:
“Any news from the courthouse today?” It’s a question asked frequently of me this past week or so.
After a series of revelations courtesy of the Indiana State Board of Accounts concerning our solid waste district, the county treasurer and auditor’s offices which spilled over into the lap of a township trustee, we may be in for a quiet spell. Maybe not.
The events certainly resuscitated discussion about county government structure and whether we ought to do some reorganizing. That’s OK.
We’ve had some letters, a number of emails, and numerous discussions. Not everyone agrees. And that’s OK.
A week has given me time to take a deep breath, do a little assessment and put things in perspective.
It’s clear to me that government structure problems are also apparent to the State Board of Accounts. It was mentioned in our reports that the drainage maintenance funds would be easier to track if the surveyor’s office maintained them. County auditor Laura Brubaker said the SBOA told her other counties are doing this with success. They have encouraged and lobbied for it to be done in Wells County, simultaneously admitting it’s against state law which stipulates the books be maintained by the auditor.
Question: if the SBOA so firmly believes that’s the better, more efficient way to do the job, why don’t they lobby the legislature to change it? They are in the best position to make the argument.
Beyond the legal issue, a provision to allow adequate funds for the surveyor to perform the job must be included.
It’s clear to me that the argument that these administrative and technical offices — the treasurer, auditor, clerk, assessor, coroner, surveyor and recorder — “answer to the voters” is empty nonsense. Voters cannot be there every day to ensure things are getting done. Voters cannot decipher who is at fault when two key offices cannot cooperate over a number of years. Voters are not in a position to make these judgments.
Voters can select and monitor leaders. Voters cannot supervise day-to-day details.
It’s clear to me that, short of a constitutional convention (a long shot indeed), it is politically impossible to put most of the Kernan-Shepherd proposals into practice, at least in one swoop. Too many turfs being covered, too many worried about re-election.
There is an argument to let the voters decide, to put out a proposal to go from three commissioners to one or not, to appoint or elect department office heads and see what the public wants. But years ago, our ancestors didn’t get to vote on government structure. There is an argument that it’s way too complicated to put on a ballot.
And inertia — the resistance to change the way things are — is a pretty powerful force.
I sometimes wonder if what we need is a benevolent dictator. That’s probably an oxymoron, but democracy can get downright messy sometimes, downright cumbersome.
But it’s not only the system we happen to have, it’s the best there is. You don’t have to look very long in this world, unfortunately, to appreciate that.
by MARK MILLER
miller@news-banner.com
Read this story in our E-Edition, Click Here
Talk about this story in our forums!