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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT