THE QUIET CRISIS: THE KERNAN-SHEPARD REPORT AND INDIANA’S NEED TO ELIMINATE TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT PATRICK M. CLINE* INTRODUCTION “President Harry Truman kept sign on his desk. It said, ‘The buck stops here.’ When it comes to local government in Indiana, few of us know where the buck stops.”1 In 2007, Governor Mitch Daniels asked then-Chief Justice Shepard and former Governor Joe Kernan to chair a bi-partisan, blue ribbon commission2 on local government reform.3 In December of 2007, the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform (the Commission) delivered its report, colloquially known as the “Kernan-Shepard Report” (KSR), containing twenty-seven specific recommendations to improve the way Hoosiers govern themselves at the local level.4 It has been more than five years since the report was delivered and very little reform has taken place. The recommendations from KSR shrink from the public debate more and more each year.5 Meanwhile, the “complex layers of government [that] are often difficult to understand, monitor and hold accountable” continue to be the law of the land.6 This Note addresses one specific recommendation from the report—the transfer of the duties of township government to their respective county. This Note confirms the Commission’s findings and addresses the objections of opponents. Part I outlines the general background and duties of township government. Part II discusses KSR and the Commission’s methods, findings and reasoning. Part III explores which groups, organizations, and outlets have supported KSR recommendations. Part IV briefly describes legislative attempts at township reform. Part V examines the recent transition from township assessments to countywide assessments as an indicator of what full township * J.D. Candidate, 2015, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. I would like to thank Mark Lawrance, Larry Mitchell, Marion County Assessor Joseph O’Connor, and Chris Pryor for their time and willingness to be interviewed for this note. Further, I would like to thank Debbie Driskell for providing many sources and documents. Finally, thank you to Professor Cynthia Baker for her help throughout the note-writing process. 1. IND. COMM. ON LOCAL GOV’T REFORM, STREAMLINING LOCAL GOV’T: WE’VE GOT TO STOP GOVERNING LIKE THIS 3 (2007) [hereinafter COMMISSION REPORT]. 2. A blue-ribbon commission is defined as being “selected for quality, reputation, or authority.” WEBSTER’S NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 163 (1983). 3. COMMISSION REPORT, supra note 1, at 42-45. 4. Id. 5. See, e.g., Scott Smith, The Problem With Poor Relief: Trustee System Dogged by Efficiency Questions, KOKOMO TRIB., Sept. 1, 2013, available at http://www.kokomotribune. com/local/x86514363/The-problem-with-poor-relief. 6. COMMISSION REPORT, supra note 1, at 3. 274 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 48:273 consolidation might look like. Part VI identifies the opponents of reform and discusses their positions and arguments. Finally, Part VII offers a proposal to provide political cover to achieve reform. No matter how this reform is accomplished, this Note concludes that Indiana’s township government structure is antiquated, inefficient, unaccountable, and defenders of this structure advance flawed arguments for its retention. The Indiana General Assembly should pass legislation transferring the duties of township trustees and advisory boards to county governments. I. BACKGROUND ON TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT Indiana has 1008 township governments.7 The Indiana Code outlines the responsibilities of the executive of township government—the township trustee.8 These duties include poor relief, fire protection (in some areas), emergency management services (EMS) in some areas, and cemetery maintenance.9 In addition to the 1008 township trustees in the state, most townships have a three- member legislative body, the township board.10 KSR notes “[t]he cumulative effect is that Indiana has three complete levels of general-purpose government (counties, townships, and municipalities), one more layer than in most of the rest of the country. No other state has a universal layer of township government.”11 II. THE KERNAN-SHEPARD REPORT KSR represents six months12 of work from a dedicated commission consisting of some tremendous Hoosier leaders and thinkers.13 Governor Mitch Daniels’ charge to the commission was one sentence long: “The purpose of the Blue- Ribbon Commission on Local Government Reform . is to develop recommendations to reform and restructure local government in Indiana in order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations and reduce its costs 7. Indiana Townships, IND. TOWNSHIP ASSOC., http://www.indianatownshipassoc.org/index. php/about-us-topmenu-38/ita-news/1-latest/14-townships-in-indiana (last visited Sept. 19, 2014) (listing each Indiana township). 8. IND. CODE § 36-6-4-3 (2011). 9. Id. 10. Id. § 36-6-6. 11. COMMISSION REPORT, supra note 1, at 25. 12. Id. at 2. 13. Id. at 5 (listing the members of the commission as Sue Ann Gilroy (former Sec. of State), Adam Herbert (former Ind. Univ. president), Louis Mahern (former State Senator and current Marion Cnty Library Bd. Chairman), Ian Rolland (retired Lincoln Nat’l Corp. Chairman and CEO), John Stafford (former Allen Cnty/Ft. Wayne gov’t official and current IPFW staff member)); Gov. Mitchell Daniels, Jr., State of the State Address (Jan. 15, 2008) (transcript available at http://www.in.gov/governorhistory/mitchdaniels/files/2008stateofstate.pdf) (noting “[a]t my request, seven leading Hoosiers with no axes to grind, no interests at heart except the public interest, recently completed a true act of citizenship”). 2014] THE QUIET CRISIS 275 to Hoosier taxpayers.”14 The Commission report summarized its research methodology: “We reviewed previous proposals from both government and non-government sources. We relied on existing research, of which there is plenty. We also were blessed with extensive citizen input. Finally, we learned from people on the front lines of local government, and experts who study local government.”15 Further, the report indicates twelve “guiding principles,” which live at the heart of the recommendations it would make.16 Among those principles are simplicity, transparency, cost savings, and flexibility.17 Seeking long-term, common-sense solutions to provide “more equitable distribution of services and responsibility for funding them” were also encompassed in the Commission’s guiding principles.18 In December 2007, the Commission reported its findings.19 The report noted “[f]or most of a century, studies and proposals have suggested how we might streamline local government. Some piecemeal measures have been implemented. But most have not. So despite lots of hard work and good thinking, the complexity of local government has actually grown, compounding over time.”20 Through its review of the current state of local government in Indiana, the commission found “[w]ith more than 3200 independent local governments, our complex system of boundaries, officeholders and taxing authorities makes it increasingly difficult for citizens to affect local government services or the taxes that pay for them.”21 To remedy the alarming findings, the commission made twenty-seven specific recommendations to improve the way local government in Indiana functions.22 The ninth recommendation reads: “[t]ransfer the responsibility for administering the duties of township government for assessment, poor relief, fire protection, emergency medical services (EMS), cemeteries and any other remaining responsibilities to the county executive. Establish a countywide poor relief levy.”23 In support of this recommendation, the commission argues: [T]ownships are often too small, in terms of land area and population, to provide cost-effective public services. This problem only becomes more pronounced with increasing administrative, staffing, training and equipment requirements, particularly for fire protection. Broad variations in resources among so many local governments create 14. COMMISSION REPORT, supra note 1, at 42. 15. Id. at 7. 16. Id. at 11. 17. Id. 18. Id. 19. Id. at 1. 20. Id. at 3. 21. Id. 22. Id. at 13-15. 23. Id. at 24. 276 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 48:273 inequities in basic services and taxes, such as fire protection, emergency medical services and poor relief. We believe that Indiana counties are large enough to allow economies of scale in services, but not so large that they preclude sufficient access and responsiveness for citizens.24 As this Note discusses, part of this recommendation has been implemented by the elimination of most of Indiana’s township assessors.25 The rest of this important recommendation remains largely unimplemented.26 The reasons for this legislative inaction will also be discussed at length.27 III. SUPPORT FOR REFORM The Commission’s recommendations found an early champion in the bully pulpit. Governor Daniels wasted no time urging the Indiana General Assembly to consider and implement these reforms: [KSR] charts the path to better local government and keeping property taxes down over the long haul. Indiana owes [Commission co-chairs] Joe Kernan, Randy Shepard, and their colleagues a heartfelt expression of thanks. And, in the wake of property tax reduction, we owe them bold action on the excellent recommendations they have given us.28 While Daniels did not get the bold action he asked the general assembly for, he found allies in some business groups, media outlets, and political pundits.29 Two of the biggest sources of reform support came from the Indiana and Indianapolis chambers of commerce and boards of REALTORS®.30 Other groups, such as the League of Women Voters, have completed further studies 24. Id. at 25. 25. See infra Part V. 26. Smith, supra note 5. 27. See infra Parts IV, VI. 28. Daniels, supra note 13. 29. See, e.g., Interview with Mark Lawrance, Senior Vice President/Foundation and Operations, Ind. Chamber of Commerce, in Indianapolis, Ind. (Oct. 22, 2013) [hereinafter Lawrance Interview] (audio recording on file with author); Editorial, Townships Out of Touch, INDIANAPOLIS STAR, Nov. 25, 2009, at A12; Abdul Hakim-Shabazz, Strange Bedfellows, IND.