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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT