Amy Gerstman

Yesterday was an extraordinary day in American history as President Obama took the oath of office!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090120/pl_mcclatchy/3149099_1
--------------------------------------
The Indiana General Assembly is in current session in Indianapolis. This year, they are considering the Kernan-Shepard Commission report. It recommends eliminating most of county elected officials and replacing them with appointed staff and one elected county executive. Everyone seems to have a position on this and nearly every newspaper in the state has published editorials supporting both sides of the argument.

The Indy Star ran an article entitled County Government Works Best, on January 17, 2009.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009901170314

Here is an exert from it:

Every local government decision is made at a public meeting, generally with legal notice. While you may or may not agree with a government decision, it is made with thoughtful consideration by a diversified group of elected officials who bring their own individual life experiences, education and expertise.
This diversification is a key component of what makes county government work. One elected executive would be vulnerable to, at the minimum, cronyism and to the extreme, corruption. The checks and balances that are firmly in place to protect your dollars would be diminished, if not lost. Serving the people as an elected official is an honorable and challenging job. The reward we receive for serving the people is an occasional thank you or compliment.

The Indiana Auditor’s Associations’ Positions (try saying that really fast!), which I support, is also included in this blog entry, pasted below:

KS Recommendation: One Commissioner makes government perform more effectively

Less accountability than current structure. Each elected official has to report to the voters as to their performance and provide a checks and balances in government. Additionally the voters have the ability every four years to replace the current position through the sacred process of voting to choose who represents them. With accountability comes transparency. This top-down approach limits public input into the decision making process by making all real decision making a closed door affair. The public needs and demands being courted about issues that will affect them individually, collectively and financially.
Lastly, having only one Commissioner would make Government less transparent. Without having to have a consensus at a public meeting the one Commissioner would be able to make decisions outside of public meetings between themselves and Department managers.

Recommendation: Set up structure similar to Town structure for finances
There is a strategic historical reason why Auditor and Treasurer are differing positions. The system is set up as a check and balance within the county structure. Unlike any other local entity, the County handles a variety of revenues for all taxing authorities. Each entity then handles its own monies. Eliminating these checks and balances increases the opportunity for fraud of Taxpayers’ dollars.

KS Recommendation: Local Government Restructuring
The Indiana County Auditors’ Association supports the modernization of local government by local government officials (who are directly responsible to the voters) to improve efficiencies and reduce cost to the tax payer. However, the Association does not support the elimination of elected officials for a system where these same job responsibilities are appointed.

The Indiana County Auditors’ Association supports the certification of County Auditors, after their election to the office, through a program syllabus designed by: Indiana County Auditors’ Association, Association of Indiana Counties and the State Legislature.

In response the Kernan-Shepard report, the Auditor’s Association sent the General Assembly these recommendations:

Home Rule
The Association of Indiana County Auditors’ support “home rule” legislation that recognizes that local elected officials are in the best position to determine local needs. The Association supports legislation that grants counties increased flexibility in the generation and use of funds with limited state oversight. The Association believes that each of the 92 counties have specific needs, according to the makeup of their population, and Counties do not fit into a one size fits all category that legislation tends to address. This individuality should be recognized and supported at a State level.

Auditor Software
The Association supports the use of multiple vendors providing tax and financial software for Counties and is in opposition of a single software program designed and administered by State Government for the following reasons:
1. Support of Software
2. Design and Implementation of State Wide systems have a poor history
3. Many taxpayer dollars have been spent purchasing software in the past couple of years
4. Cost of a state wide system to taxpayers

Notification to Taxpayers
The Association supports meaningful information and transparency of government to local taxpayers. Yet, the association believes that this information should be factual, based on true figures and values. The Association further believes that if notification of taxpayers is delivered to each taxpayer then the publication of information in local newspapers should be eliminated to save taxpayers the cost of over informing.

Publication of Claims
The Association supports the elimination of Counties having to publish all claims. The Association supports this transparency of spending by making hard copies or internet publication on the county web site available to the public of the claims paid and to be paid. The Association supports publication of claims similar to Municipalities.

County Finances
The Association is in opposition of amending the Indiana Constitution for the inclusion of the 1-2-3 Circuit Breaker language as written and approved in the 2008 Assembly. The Association believes that any amendment to our Constitution should provide the same requirements for each county and not provide for exceptions. The Association further believes the citizens of Indiana would be better served by allowing the statutory language of the Circuit Breaker, property tax caps, to be realized to determine the true affects of this type of legislation on local communities before amending this concept into the Indiana Constitution.

Support By State Agencies
The Association desires that State Agencies work with Counties in the release of information to local units of news media. Many times the information released does not reflect the whole picture and therefore is presented by the State Agencies in a way that is derogatory to local officials. In most cases the view of the circumstances from Indianapolis does not reflect the true circumstances that are viewed at the local level. The Association believes that the truest form of government is a government that is administered closest to the source of the taxation after the citizens of that county has been able to have input through community dialog.

State Accountability
The Association recognizes that the State is responsible for collecting and distributing to local governments taxes collected for local governments from taxes other than property taxes. The Association supports accountability from state agencies in the distribution of these revenues. This includes full disclosure of supporting data and funding formulas. The Association is opposed to the State withholding any form of revenue from counties for non-compliance of state requests for data without efforts by the state agency to assist getting the information or accept the information as submitted due to circumstances that are beyond the counties control or no longer relevant or not cost effective to re-create. The association would support the assistance of State offices in helping the Counties come compliant.