DOCSLIB.ORG

A New Single Unitary Council for Cumbria

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A New Single Unitary Council for Cumbria A New Single Unitary Council for Cumbria many voices, one vision One Cumbria - Many Voices, One Vision One Cumbria - Many Voices, One Vision Cumbria County Council’s submission to the Boundary Committee The Council believes that a Contents single unitary authority for • Introduction . 3. • Vision and Executive Summary . 4. Cumbria is the only model • Delivering the Vision . 6. • Characterising the Needs of Cumbria . 8. which can deliver any prospect • A Single New Unitary Authority for Cumbria of quality services, efficiency Making Cumbria's Voice Heard . 14 Meeting Local Needs - Community Leadership . 18 savings and significant influence Strengthening Strategic Capacity . 22 on the regional agenda. Improving Performance . 28 • One Cumbria - The Financial Case . .32 . County Council Resolution, 23rd January 2003 • One Cumbria - One Council . 34. Rex Toft Mike Ash This submission gives clear expression to the nature and style that the new Authority should adopt and to Leader of Cumbria Deputy Leader of County Council Cumbria County Council the critical issues facing it. However, it does not presume to design either the political or management structures of the new Cumbria Unitary Council. Those will be matters for the new Council to determine following consultation and the decision of the Secretary of State. 2 September 2003 3 One Cumbria - Many Voices, One Vision One Cumbria - Many Voices, One Vision The Executive Summary Our vision for the new A Clear Vision - focused on Cumbria's future needs Cumbria represents a unique challenge for Even as a single unitary, the new authority will have a unitary local authority: effective and efficient local government. smaller population than many others in the UK. We This submission demonstrates a compelling, must not reduce council size to a level where the best evidence-based case for choosing the most politicians and officers are not attracted to work for it. effective and economic response to that a powerful force for the • Strategic capacity… by generating sufficient challenge. It backs up a vision that is founded critical mass to address complex service development, upon a realistic mix of experience and procurement and modernisation issues such as people and businesses ambition. Louis Victory strategic service partnerships, e-Government and Chief Executive of We believe that this vision is the only viable sub-regional economic regeneration. of Cumbria Cumbria County Council option to deliver on these issues: Cumbria’s recent experience with major innovations • Community Leadership… by giving Cumbria’s demonstrates that a sufficiently strategic approach is We see one powerful new authority that makes a difference, here diverse communities the weight they need to influence essential to deliver effective modernisation. Only a regional and national policy makers. single unitary authority can provide the energy, expertise and influence which are needed. in Cumbria, across the region, and nationally. We also see that authority Only a single unitary authority can provide the necessary leadership that Cumbria demonstrated • Simple, effective and accountable local delivering the best local services and providing best value year on year. during foot-and-mouth, including the development of government… by ensuring a single point of a nationally regarded rural regeneration agenda. customer contact and guaranteed high standards of service for all local authority functions across • Community Engagement… by providing the level The new authority will be open and accessible. It will enable Cumbrians Cumbria. of organisational support for delegated decision to easily influence, shape and make use of all local services. making at a local level which only a single unitary for Only a single unitary authority will have the capacity Cumbria could offer. to deliver such standards. Only a single unitary will build on Cumbria’s national • A smooth transition to unitary Local people and communities will have a significant voice in determining reputation for devolved neighbourhood and local area government…by minimising disruption to existing working to empower the individual communities with organisations dependent on Cumbria-wide coverage policies and strategies, and these will be implemented by a single which people identify. and giving greatest continuity to employees and partners. • High performing services… by exploiting large- organisation with sufficient resources and capacity to be truly effective. scale synergies between services such as social care Only a single unitary authority will minimise disruption and housing, education and children’s services, and maximise the potential for streamlined funding and highways maintenance and town centre management reporting arrangements to the myriad of (particularly The new authority will reconcile the diversity of competing interests in across an adequate population size. voluntary sector) organisations already operating at the Cumbria-wide scale. Cumbria and represent them coherently, regionally and nationally. Only a single unitary authority can deliver high-powered management of these services that will Already Cumbria is 28th in population terms enable full integration of functions without undesirable among the 34 English shire counties. joint management arrangements between smaller This adversely affects national funding and the councils. power with which we can press the interests of Cumbrians regionally and nationally. • High quality political and managerial leadership… by offering sufficient scope, breadth To go for anything less than a Cumbria-wide of responsibility and capacity to attract and retain the new unitary Council risks sending this best in local leadership. wonderful part of England into powerlessness and depression compared with the big Councils in the north west region. 4 5 One Cumbria - Many Voices, One Vision One Cumbria - Many Voices, One Vision Delivering the Vision • The County Council believes that a single unitary • The expectations of Government and local tax • Our submission provides an evidence-based • The chart below illustrates how a new unitary authority for Cumbria is the only model which payers form the specifications for a new and argument to support the case for a single authority will build on existing strengths and can deliver any realistic prospect of quality vibrant authority - one that has the capacity to unitary authority for Cumbria to deliver the eliminate weaknesses to provide real benefits for services, cost effectiveness and significant be innovative, responsive to local communities agenda for a modernised local government. the whole of Cumbria and it's local communities. influence on the regional agenda. and provide better value and one that can make a significant impact regionally and nationally. CUMBRIA 2003 CUMBRIA 2006 where Councils are now CHALLENGES One Unitary Authority AND • County delegation to local commitees & • One clear vision neighbourhood forums OPPORTUNITIES • Clear identity - understood by local people • Cumbria Strategic Partnership (CSP) & Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) • Strengthened local decision making • High performing County education authority • Empowered local communities • Community Leadership • Citizen access & participation • County regeneration success including creating • Aligned & focused partnerships Strengths innovative regeneration companies • Community Engagement • Clear vision of community well-being • Improved ability to manage conflicts internally • County economies of scale: education, • Sustainable communities • Framework of standards & accountability social services & highways • Strengthened regional influence • High quality political leadership • Devolution to encourage diversity & creativity • County service and partnership innovation • Increased capacity to build and deliver • Clearer accountability Leadership Community • One efficient and cost effective Council Seven local authority bureaucracies causing: • Effective, convenient local government • Sound financial management • Shared skills, better services • Fragmented service delivery & regional influence • Innovative • Front line flexibility • Improved performance • Strategic capacity • More choice for customers • Duplication • Improving, managing performance • Enjoy the confidence of • Combined resources • Limited capacity • Maximise partnership potential customers & partners • Good recruitment and retention aknesses • Confusion for the public • Locally responsive We • Lack of co-ordination • Equitable • More flexible & accessible services • Artificial internal council boundaries BETTER VALUE Quality Services BETTER SERVICES CUMBRIA 2003 CUMBRIA 2006 where Councils are now One Unitary Authority 6 7 One Cumbria - Many Voices, One Vision One Cumbria - Many Voices, One Vision Characterising the Needs of Cumbria Unique context Scale and sparsity Landscape and environment Infrastructure and communications Cumbria is a unique county that justifies a unique The Cumbrian land mass shapes one of England’s Cumbria contains all of the Lake District as well The M6 creates Cumbria's ‘spine’ of 97km of approach to local government. Even Carlisle, it's most recognisable and well-defined counties with as closely associated parts of the Yorkshire Dales motorway through the east side of the land mass. largest settlement, contains less than 70,000 people. 73% of residents showing fairly or very strong sense National Parks (Map 9) and four Areas of In addition there are 357km of trunk roads and of belonging at the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Simultaneous Cabinet Further Transformation In
    6 SIMULTANEOUS CABINET Monday 13 November 2017 FURTHER TRANSFORMATION IN EAST SUFFOLK (REP1629) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Suffolk Coastal District Council and Waveney District Council agreed in January 2017 to create a new Council for east Suffolk. This was preceded by an intensive period of public consultation in November 2016, the results of which demonstrated that the majority of residents were in favour of one district Council in east Suffolk. 2. The decision to create a new Council for east Suffolk was both ambitious and ground breaking. A “super district” Council will be formed which will be the largest in England in terms of population. The creation of a new Council follows the successful legacy of both Councils working closely together for many years. Officers of all levels of seniority are shared, a joint Business Plan has been adopted and other key policies such as the Housing Strategy are shared. The Councils already share one website under the “East Suffolk” banner and Councillors from both authorities have attended meetings of each Council’s Cabinets since 2010. Cabinet portfolios are aligned and members have shared representation on various outside bodies. 3. The creation of a new Council will be a model other authorities follow as they decide how best to grapple with the significant challenges facing local government. Councils need to be of a scale large enough to face these challenges by having a loud enough voice, a strong bargaining position, a healthy balance sheet and a resilient workforce, yet small enough to feel connected to their residents. The creation of the new Council for east Suffolk will strike that balance.
    [Show full text]
  • LOCAL GOVERNMENT Reform in KĀPITI – What Do You Think? 1
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN KĀPITI – WHAT DO YOU THINK? 1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN KĀPITI – WhaT DO YOU THINK? kapiticoast.govt.nz/reform 2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN KĀPITI – WHAT DO YOU THINK? WE WANT TO HEAR FROM AS MANY RESIDENTS AS POSSIBLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN KĀPITI – WHAT DO YOU THINK? 3 Introduction This discussion document has been released by the Kāpiti Coast District Council to help find out how residents want their district to be governed in the future. This document seeks to stimulate discussion and identify whether you want changes to how local government operates in Kāpiti and what you broadly want that change to look like. There are many ways that local government is affected in one way or another by the could be structured in the wider area. However services provided by local government, we in order to have a reasonably focussed debate have described the four options at a fairly high we have identified four options that represent level, without too much detail. We have also different degrees of change. Option 1 contains 2 consciously decided not to express either a sub-options. There is the opportunity for you to preferred option or any views on the advantages discuss other options if you choose. and disadvantages of each option – we are asking the public to do that for us at this stage. Our four options range from keeping the current councils in place but making formal It is not our role to tell other parts of the region arrangements to share services across councils how they should be governed.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief-To-Advise-Frome-Town-Council-In-The-Run-Up-To-And-Establishment-Of-Unitary-Authority.Pdf
    Unitary Adviser Brief Frame Town Council Brief to advise Frame Town Council in the run up to and establishment of unitary authority(ies) in Somerset 1. Scope Frame Town Council is recognised locally, nationally and internationally as a forward thinking and innovative Council. We are renowned for exploring how to expand the remit of town councils. Somerset is about to embark on local government reorganisation. The county council and the district councils will be replaced with one or two unitary councils in April 2023. FTC sees this as an opportunity to change the way local government in Somerset works towards a more community led approach where decisions are made at the appropriate level and with the appropriate engagement. Influencing how the new unitary is established and developed is a key project for the Council. We want to appoint an experienced advisor or small consultancy to work with FTC Cllrs and staff and other relevant organisations in and beyond Fro me. This work is likely to last at least until September or October 2021 and we anticipate 2 to 3 working days per week. We will be interested in someone who understands local government, has worked at a senior level in relevant organisations, who understands large scale change programmes and ideally also has recent experience of local government reorganisation. The ability to build excellent working relationships at all levels of local government and business will be essential. With other Somerset based parish sector organisations, FTC commissioned a report (here) last year which explores the possibilities of reorganisation. Its seven recommendations have been accepted by both proposals presented to the Government: One Somerset (here) promoted by the County Council, and Stronger Somerset (here) promoted by the four district Councils.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Councils in England by Type
    List of councils in England by type There are a total of 353 councils in England: Metropolitan districts (36) London boroughs (32) plus the City of London Unitary authorities (55) plus the Isles of Scilly County councils (27) District councils (201) Metropolitan districts (36) 1. Barnsley Borough Council 19. Rochdale Borough Council 2. Birmingham City Council 20. Rotherham Borough Council 3. Bolton Borough Council 21. South Tyneside Borough Council 4. Bradford City Council 22. Salford City Council 5. Bury Borough Council 23. Sandwell Borough Council 6. Calderdale Borough Council 24. Sefton Borough Council 7. Coventry City Council 25. Sheffield City Council 8. Doncaster Borough Council 26. Solihull Borough Council 9. Dudley Borough Council 27. St Helens Borough Council 10. Gateshead Borough Council 28. Stockport Borough Council 11. Kirklees Borough Council 29. Sunderland City Council 12. Knowsley Borough Council 30. Tameside Borough Council 13. Leeds City Council 31. Trafford Borough Council 14. Liverpool City Council 32. Wakefield City Council 15. Manchester City Council 33. Walsall Borough Council 16. North Tyneside Borough Council 34. Wigan Borough Council 17. Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council 35. Wirral Borough Council 18. Oldham Borough Council 36. Wolverhampton City Council London boroughs (32) 1. Barking and Dagenham 17. Hounslow 2. Barnet 18. Islington 3. Bexley 19. Kensington and Chelsea 4. Brent 20. Kingston upon Thames 5. Bromley 21. Lambeth 6. Camden 22. Lewisham 7. Croydon 23. Merton 8. Ealing 24. Newham 9. Enfield 25. Redbridge 10. Greenwich 26. Richmond upon Thames 11. Hackney 27. Southwark 12. Hammersmith and Fulham 28. Sutton 13. Haringey 29. Tower Hamlets 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Collaboration in Surrey
    WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL COUNCIL 23 FEBRUARY 2021 Title: Local Government Collaboration in Surrey Portfolio Holder: Cllr J Ward, Leader Senior Officer: T Horwood, Chief Executive Key decision: No Access: Public 1. Purpose and summary 1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Council on progress on local government collaboration since the Council and Executive discussions of 22 July and 8 September 2020 respectively, and to allow Council to debate opportunities for future collaboration among local authorities in the light of the KPMG report, and this report. 2. Recommendation The Executive has: 1. Noted the KPMG report on future opportunities for local government in Surrey; 2. Endorsed the development of an initial options appraisal for collaboration with Guildford Borough Council; and 3. Allocated the remaining £15,000 budget previously approved for “a unitary council proposal” to “exploring collaboration opportunities with other councils”. The Executive recommend to the Council that it debate opportunities for future collaboration among local authorities in the light of the KPMG report and this report. 3. Reason for the recommendation 3.1 This report updates councillors and the public on the progress made in the discussions on local government reorganisation and collaboration in Surrey. 3.2 At Executive meetings in 2020, £30,000 was allocated “to support preparatory work for a unitary council proposal”. It is now recommended to allocate the remaining £15,000 to support the development of proposals for council collaboration, to be reported back to the Executive in due course. 4. Background context 4.1 A detailed update was provided to the Executive at its meeting on 8 September 2020,1 and is summarised as follows.
    [Show full text]
  • Written Evidence Submitted by East Sussex County Council [ASC 021]
    Written evidence submitted by East Sussex County Council [ASC 021] • How has Covid-19 changed the landscape for long-term funding reform of the adult social care sector? The challenges facing the adult social care market prior to the pandemic are well documented and, in many cases, have been brought into sharp focus over the last 12 months. Local Authority published rates; contract arrangements (e.g. block arrangements); commissioning approaches (e.g. strategic partners) and CCG funding agreements including Better Care Fund allocations are all key funding reform considerations which sit alongside the necessity to offer choice, personalised care and high quality, safe services. Residential and nursing care There are 306 registered care homes in East Sussex – the majority are small independently run homes, which don’t have the wrap-around organisational infrastructure enjoyed by larger / national providers. In East Sussex, Local Authority placements are made across around one-third of the residential and nursing care market. At the peak of the second wave over 100 care homes in East Sussex were closed to admissions due to Covid outbreaks. Week commencing 04/01/21 there were 853 confirmed cases of Covid19 in East Sussex care home settings. During 2021, as of the week ending 19/03/2021, East Sussex has had 2,404 deaths registered in total and 1,110 of these have been attributable to COVID-19, of which 597 have occurred in hospital and 436 have occurred in care homes (LG reform data). In the two years up to April 2019, there were 26 residential and nursing home closures in East Sussex resulting in a loss of 435 beds, across all care groups.
    [Show full text]
  • IPPR | Empowering Counties: Unlocking County Devolution Deals ABOUT the AUTHORS
    REPORT EMPOWERING COUNTIES UNLOCKING COUNTY DEVOLUTION DEALS Ed Cox and Jack Hunter November 2015 © IPPR 2015 Institute for Public Policy Research ABOUT IPPR IPPR, the Institute for Public Policy Research, is the UK’s leading progressive thinktank. We are an independent charitable organisation with more than 40 staff members, paid interns and visiting fellows. Our main office is in London, with IPPR North, IPPR’s dedicated thinktank for the North of England, operating out of offices in Newcastle and Manchester. The purpose of our work is to conduct and publish the results of research into and promote public education in the economic, social and political sciences, and in science and technology, including the effect of moral, social, political and scientific factors on public policy and on the living standards of all sections of the community. IPPR 4th Floor 14 Buckingham Street London WC2N 6DF T: +44 (0)20 7470 6100 E: [email protected] www.ippr.org Registered charity no. 800065 This paper was first published in November 2015. © 2015 The contents and opinions in this paper are the authors ’ only. POSITIVE IDEAS for CHANGE CONTENTS Summary ............................................................................................................3 1. Devolution unleashed .....................................................................................9 2. Why devolve to counties? ............................................................................11 2.1 Counties and their economic opportunities ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • BOROUGH COUNCIL HANDBOOK Twelfth Edition | August 2019
    BOROUGH COUNCIL HANDBOOK Twelfth Edition | August 2019 Harrisburg, PA Commonwealth of Pennsylvania PA Department of Community & Economic Development | dced.pa.gov Comments or inquiries on the subject matter of this publication should be addressed to: Governor’s Center for Local Government Services Department of Community and Economic Development Commonwealth Keystone Building 400 North Street, 4th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120-0225 (717) 787-8158 1-888-223-6837 E-mail: [email protected] dced.pa.gov No liability is assumed with respect to the use of information contained in this publication. Laws may be amended or court rulings issued that could affect a particular procedure, issue or interpretation. The Department of Community and Economic Development assumes no responsibility for errors and omissions nor any liability for damages resulting from the use of information contained herein. Please contact your local solicitor for legal advice. Preparation of this publication was financed from appropriations of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Copyright © 2019, Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, all rights reserved. Table of Contents I. Office of Borough Council Member . .1 Ward Redistricting . .1 Redistricting by Ordinance . .1 II. Legislative Powers . .7 General Powers . .7 The Legislative Role . .7 Quasi-Judicial Role . .8 Conduct of Meetings . .8 Parliamentary Procedure . .10 Sunshine Act . .11 Minutes and Records . .11 Intergovernmental Cooperation . .12 III. Administrative and Appointive Powers . .14 Appointed Administrator . .14 Personnel Management . .16 Appointment Powers . .17 Boards and Commissions . .18 Municipal Authorities . .19 IV. Fiscal Powers . .22 Taxes . .22 Act 50 . .23 The Budget . .24 The Budget Calendar . .25 Capital Improvements Planning and Budgeting .
    [Show full text]
  • 985 EDUCATION (2) That the Revised Estimates Of
    985 EDUCATION (Note: This report was presented to the Council at its meeting on \2th Decem­ ber, 1952.) EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 4th December, 1952. Present: Councillors Brown (in the Chair), Adkins, Alien, J.P., Bailey, A. C. L. Bishop, Buckle, Collins, Duff, Gange, J.P., Leigh, J.P., C.C., Lovell, MacRae, Mason, Mrs. Milner and Sheldrake (Representative members); Messrs. F. W. Coppin and C. A. Lillingston, Rev. H. Eland Stewart, and Miss D. E. Hunt (Co-opted members); Mr. J. Barrow, C.C. (Appointed member); Mr. J. Rostron, Miss A. Robinson and Miss D. E. Ross (Members of the Youth Sub-Committee). PART I.—RECOMMENDATIONS. RECOMMENDATION I: Education Estimates of Capital Expenditure for the Year 1953/54. Your Committee has considered, and is in agreement with, recommendation I of the report of its General Purposes and Finance Sub-Committee of 4th December, 1952, relating to capital expenditure for the financial year 1953/54, details of which are set out in paragraph 61 (2nd December, 1952) of the report of the (Education) Sites and Buildings Sub-Committee. Resolved to RECOMMEND: That a resolution in the following terms be passed by the Council: That the items included in the estimates of capital expenditure, amounting to £52,365, for the financial year 1953/54, in accordance with the details now submitted, be approved and submitted to the Middlesex County Council. RECOMMENDATION II: Education Estimates on Revenue Account for the Years 1952/53 and 1953/54. Your Committee has considered, and is in agreement with, recommendation II of the report of its General Purposes and Finance Sub-Committee of 4th December, 1952, relating to the approval of estimates of income and expendi­ ture on revenue account for the financial year 1953/54, and revised estimates for 1952/53.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Reorganisation in Nottinghamshire?: Report of Public
    Opinion Research Services | Dorset CCG – Improving Dorset’s Healthcare Consultation 2016/17: Report of Findings May 2017 Loc al Government Reorganisation in Nottinghamshire? Final Report Report of Public and Stakeholder Engagement Opinion Research Services December 2018 Opinion Research Services | The Strand • Swansea • SA1 1AF | 01792 535300 | www.ors.org.uk | [email protected] Opinion Research Services | Nottinghamshire Reorganisation Report – December 2018 Local Government Reorganisation in Nottinghamshire? Report of Public and Stakeholder Engagement December 2018 Opinion Research Services (ORS) The Strand Swansea SA1 1AF 01792 535300 | www.ors.org.uk | [email protected] As with all our studies, findings from this report are subject to Opinion Research Services’ Standard Terms and Conditions of Contract. Any press release or publication of the findings of this report requires the advance approval of ORS. Such approval will only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misrepresentation This study was conducted in accordance with ISO 20252:2012 and ISO 9001:2008. © Copyright December 2018 2 Opinion Research Services | Nottinghamshire Reorganisation Report – December 2018 Table of Contents The ORS Project Team .................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction and Summary ........................................................................ 6 Background ........................................................................................................................... 6 The
    [Show full text]
  • Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council Bridgend County Borough Council Caerphilly County Borough Council the City of Cardiff Counc
    Welsh Local Authorities gritting information (alphabetical order) Blaenau Gwent Info and map of http://www.blaenau-gwent.gov.uk/resident/highways- County Borough gritting routes cleansing/winter-gritting/winter-gritting-routes-salt-bins/ Council http://www.blaenau- gwent.gov.uk/resident/emergencies-crime- prevention/preparing-for-winter/ Bridgend County Info and map of http://www.bridgend.gov.uk/winter.aspx Borough Council gritting routes http://www.bridgend.gov.uk/services/highways.aspx Caerphilly County Info and map of http://www.caerphilly.gov.uk/Services/Roads-and- Borough Council gritting routes pavements/Gritting-and-snow-clearing/Winter-Service- Plan http://www.news.wales/south/caerphilly-county- borough-council/caerphilly-council-is-monitoring- weather-conditions-2017-01-25740.html The City of Cardiff Info and map of https://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ENG/resident/Parking-roads- Council gritting routes and-travel/Winter-maintenance/Pages/Winter- Location of salt maintenance.aspx bins https://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ENG/resident/Community- safety/Severe-winter- weather/Documents/winter%20weather%20guide.pdf Carmarthenshire Info and map of http://www.carmarthenshire.gov.wales/home/residents/t County Council gritting routes ravel-roads-parking/gritting/#.WH4UVk1DT9Q Twitter https://twitter.com/CarmsCouncil/status/7992671481998 25409 Ceredigion County Info and map of https://www.ceredigion.gov.uk/English/Resident/Travel- Council gritting routes Roads-Parking/Highways-During- Twitter Winter/Pages/default.aspx https://www.ceredigion.gov.uk/English/Resident/Travel-
    [Show full text]
  • List of Elected Officials
    Wayne County Elected Officials State Officials Governor Statewide Eric Holcomb Rep Lt. Governor Statewide Suzanne Crouch Rep Attorney General Statewide Todd Rokita Rep US Senator Statewide Mike Braun Rep US Senator Statewide Todd Young Rep Secretary of State Statewide Holli Sullivan Rep Auditor of State Statewide Tera Klutz Rep Treasurer of State Statewide Kelly Mitchell Rep US Representative District 6 Greg Pence Rep State Senator District 27 Jeff Raatz Rep State Representative District 54 Tom Saunders Rep State Representative District 56 Brad Barrett Rep Judge of Circuit Court 17th Circuit April Drake Rep Judge of Superior Court Superior Court I Charles “Chuck” Todd Rep Superior Court II Greg Horn Rep Superior Court III Darrin Dolehanty Rep Prosecuting Attorney 17th Circuit Mike Shipman Rep Wayne County Officials Auditor Kimberly Walton Rep Clerk of Courts Debra Berry Rep Coroner Kevin Fouche Rep Recorder Debbie Tiemann Rep Sheriff Randy Retter Rep Surveyor Gordon Moore Rep Treasurer Nancy Funk Rep Assessor Tim Smith Rep Wayne Twp-Assessor Gary Callahan Rep Commissioner-District 1 Kenneth E Paust Rep Commissioner-District 2 Mary Ann Butters Rep Commissioner-District 3 Jeff Plasterer Rep Wayne County Council Officials County Council-District 1 Robert (Bob) Chamness Rep County Council-District 2 Rodger Smith Rep County Council-District 3 Beth Leisure Rep County Council-District 4 Tony Gillam Rep County Council At-Large Max Smith Rep County Council At-Large Cathy Williams Rep County Council At-Large Gerald (Gary) Saunders Rep Wayne County Trustee Abington-Trustee Chelsie R Buchanan Rep Boston-Trustee Sandra K Nocton Rep Center-Trustee Vicki Chasteen Rep Clay-Trustee Rebecca L Cool Rep Dalton-Trustee Lance A.
    [Show full text]