ILNews

Q&A: DeLaney on township government reform

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

This story was published in Capitol Watch, a supplement to Indiana Lawyer daily.

A longtime Indianapolis attorney who's a freshman lawmaker with the Indiana General Assembly is embracing what he calls the most significant local government reform issue expected this session.

Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, is introducing legislation that would abolish township government throughout the state. The reform follows similar attempts during the 2009 session, and comes on the heels of a 2007 report co-authored by Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard that called for sweeping changes to Indiana's local government setup.

While it hasn't been officially filed yet, DeLaney says his proposal calls for transferring all township functions to county government beginning Jan. 1, 2013. He expects it to be filed by Monday.

He took a few moments during the first week back for the 2010 session to speak with Indiana Lawyer about his legislation.

IL: Why introduce this?

DeLaney: These townships are political clubs without any social importance. They have hundreds of millions of dollars that sits and no one really knows how it's used. We can and should do better.

IL: How would this work?

DeLaney: County officials would take over these fiscal and legislative responsibilities. This would completely eliminate township trustees, instead establishing a single county executive to handle those duties. It specifies how excess funds could be used to provide additional property tax relief and streamline how people get emergency services. An elected advocate position would be created in each Indiana county to operate and oversee these areas. The legislation could also lead to changes in how fire departments are set up, but that's not certain at this point.

IL: Why is this important to introduce now, when Indiana's budget woes keep worsening?

DeLaney: It's important to talk about this anytime, but especially now. Government must function efficiently and use money in the best ways, and in the case of townships we can literally do more for less money.

IL: What does this mean for lawyers and the legal community?

DeLaney: Aside from the fact that the report was co-authored by the top justice, it would have significant impact for those involved in local government operations and bonding law. Not to mention that we're advocates for the poor. ... Lawyers help us all understand what this means and how it's applied. We represent people whose voices might not be heard and who could be impacted by all this, and that's why lawyers should keep watch on this.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT