Me: Regarding SB 105, the emergency manager that the DUAB appoints, he seems to be both executive and legislative, all powerful, god with a small "g."
Charbonneau: Well, he's there to do what needs to get done to fix the finances, and needs to have flexibility.
Me: We have local elections this year, and the challengers are worried that since Clay (Mayor of Gary) already went down state saying Gary's distressed, this manager may be appointed before they get sworn in, and they'll have no chance to step up and have their chance...
Charbonneau: I noticed that of the people coming to me, the taxpayers are for it, and the politicians are making an opposition.
Me: Any chance the emergency manager gets pulled from the bill, since in a Chapter 9 (bankruptcy) the court appoints an administrator anyway, and this is redundant?
Charbonneau: [beaming smile] the whole point is to avoid a Chapter 9.
At this point I saw he was firm on the EM (what I'll call the Emergency Manager from here on out), and since I grabbed him after the end of the program (he was gracious enough to give me bonus time though the forum was officially ended), all I'd do with further pursuit would be to annoy him and hamper future interaction, so I thanked him for his time and moved on.
I attended the Town Hall held in opposition to the current wording of SB 105, hosted and moderated by Gary City Councilman at Large candidate Tony Walker, on the 20th of January at Gary Neighborhood Services headquarters. Over sixty people came out on a bitterly cold evening for a two and a half hour meeting, and about twenty spoke out after Mr. Walker's explanation on his Area of Concern, the EM. The mood of the crowd was of concern, and was a very intelligent and well spoken group. The tone seemed to fall generally around generational lines, with those older that forty concerned that this was a take-over of "our city" and that "the community" should resolve the financial problems instead of an appointed EM outsider. Those under forty were overall upset with the failed system as a whole. One woman who moved from West Virginia to Gary said opportunity was so scarce, she was bound to return to West Virginia, where she said only senior citizens who couldn't afford to move lived since the younger ones all left for better money. Others pointed out how it's not surprising to see the governor, when city officials time and time again went down state for either outright help, or a bending of the rules that every other city has to endure, finally says "yeah I'll help, and here's a EM to get the job done." Some asked what happened to federal grants and casino funds that the city already received, while others pointed out how residents keep electing the same type of person to office, so why should we expect to get a new crew who will be competent and honest this time around.Some say "follow the money" to see why this or that person is fighting for a point. I have a second rule: "whose ox is about to get gored?" Regan Hatcher has been going for the mayoral post since she stepped into City Council four years ago. She and Mr. Walker were two candidates at the Town Hall. And she was one of two current office holders there. The other was the City Clerk, who spoke to reassure the crowd that yes, she actually came to work every day at City Hall to do her duties, so please re-elect her, please. The 2012 Team will be mere figureheads if the DUAB appoints a EM, and who wants to spend their lives and thousands of dollars to win an office where they have no power, influence, or respect? Would you?
But this does not mean valid points don't come from this Town Hall. Should a locality effectively lose its franchise, and for a period of years at that? ALL power is invested in an appointed EM. No qualifications are prescribed for the job in the bill. The time frame is open ended, so it appears to behoove the EM to do just well enough to satisfy claimants (and the DUAB every six months with a report), but the job seems sweet (it's good to be King) so why do so well one loses the job? This EM has all power (Sec. 8.5, a, 1) meaning city ordinances, park rules, fines levied, codes enforced, all are under the realm of the EM, with no prospect of appeal for the citizen (at this point, the subject).I think that anyone with a small government ideology should have an interest here. This affects all units, including transportation and port authorities, school boards, counties, townships, you name it. And it's there in the Indiana Code for all future governments, conservative and liberal statist alike. In every war won, we've rushed to normalize the defeated areas with their own councils, parliaments, (state assemblies under Reconstruction), and wrote constitutions for places that had none before. Here we appear to have an open ended absolute ruler on the Indiana local level, whether or not this is the intent of the authors (i.e.: Law of Unintended Consequences). And the bill is fast tracked to pass by the end of February and become law immediately. What exactly is the rush?
I'm not saying it's a bad bill in total. Neither does Mr. Walker by any stretch. I'm wondering if it's massively incomplete, with no stringent checks and balances written into it. There's nothing in the Indiana Constitution preventing the stripping of all powers from an appointed authority board or an elected city government, so saying "don't worry, if it's unconstitutional it'll get tossed" doesn't work. What's the difference between living under an EM and under an autocrat who you hope is benevolent? And like it was asked at the Town Hall, would YOU want to live in a city where you had no rights?
Bibliography:
SB 105
Indiana Constitution
Law of Unintended Consequences
