Balance would seem to require informing about Mr. Hinkle's position (also in the Star)that the Peterson numbers are a hoax. While looking at reformation do not neglect all of the findings of the Government Efficiency Commission. And, be sure to pay attention, as UniGov II does not, to the unit cost of government service provided to ensure that the unit cost is lower rather than higher. A careful reading of the Peterson Plan II, (that would be his political pro forma offered to the voters)will confirm the difficulty of holding office holders to account.

As a general rule, it is appropriate for those dissenting to actually make an argument instead of pointing to shadowy studies and ethereal estimates.

I find your entry unpersuasive but am willing to be persuaded. As I understand it, dwindling revenues, ambitious civic projects and IPS funding issues continue to hound the Petersen administration. His answer? Eliminate a layer of government that seemingly contributes nothing to the problem of Indianapolis's affairs.

Even if I misunderstand the issue somewhat, or oversimplify, allow me to forward an argument against this proposal by making an even more simple suggestion - If eliminating levels of government is good, why do we need an Indianapolis government? Why not consolidate all municipal functions into the state's framework? Better yet, why not consolidate all into the national government? Saves money....supposedly.

I have neither the time nor the space to explain the case fully here. The links I provide at the top of the piece and to the Woodburn pamphlet in the second paragraph give more detail.

Your slippery slope argument is, as usual, fallacious. The argument against townships is not that "consolidation is always good" but rather that townships are specifically bad at the job they do, for all the reasons listed elsewhere. Worse, they are not held accountable to voters, because of their position as relatively obscure agencies rarely taken seriously by either the media or the electorate. The simple ignorance of most voters about the responsibilities, abilities, and even the identities of their township officials adds to this.

Moreover, while it is easy to adduce reasons for the continued existence of municipal governments (although less so for the current county structure as constituted--92 administrative subdivisions is an awful lot; but this is an objection to a specific arrangement, not to a principle), it is difficult to see what functions of government are best performed locally. Welfare provision? Unlikely--the tax base is too small and the diseconomies of scale too great. Tax assessment? Mostly contracted out. The regulation of dog licenses (one of the powers, if things haven't changed in the past ten years, of the township advisory boards)? No.

Townships in Indiana have been steadily whittled away, from the combination of the township and assessor positions in the early 1930s to the elimination of (most) township schools in the consolidation era to the demise (long overdue) of justices of the peace and constables in the 70s. The administrative structure to take over their duties at a level where they will be better supervised, more efficiently discharged, and ultimately more accountable to the voters exists; it is only a question of legislative will.

To take your counterfactual on its face, by the way, I might easily ask why we don't continue the principle of local government such that each neighborhood--no, each block--no, each family--has its own government responsible for certain powers. Such arrangements have been tried before (the Chinese relied on such expedients for a very long time) but they are ultimately unworkable and breed only corruption, cruelty or pettiness.

Mr. Hinkle's article appears in the same Indianapolis Star which you provide a link for. It is in the April 18 issue. The findings of the Efficiency Commission are hardly shadowy-you can even order the disc and it will cure any insomnia you may have acquired. Mr. Hinkle suggests, as do a great many others, that he would like the "real impact" of Indy Works to be understood and he would like questions answered which he and other legislators have posed. Can you provide a link to his article for your readers?

Mr Dixon are you uncapable of cutting a pasting a simple link yourself? Can you not master this basic tenet of using the internet?

A simple response to a simple inquiry.

When I look at the issue it boils down to "townships do a bad job of governance and Indianapolis Municipal government will do better"...or something to that effect.

I submit that there is no evidence to back up this assertion. Mismanagement, poor responsiveness and questionable if not non-existent civic planning reveal themselves in the many problems Indianapolis faces today.

What I want from a city government is fire and police protection, clean, safe streets, sewer and garbage service, a competent administrative staff to handle these duties and a controlling authority for contract enforcement and development standards. Sounds like a township entity to me.

What I don't want from my city government is another layer of corporate welfare and an educational system bent over so far backwards by union interests that it's capacity for improvement and change is rendered meaningless. Taking away what is admittedly a misunderstood and oftentimes ineffective level of government sounds easy but remember that once it's gone truly local government in Indianapolis is gone forever. It's similar to a business decision to break off with a troublesome customer. It's easy to blow them away but pretty damn hard to get new ones.

I appreciate your response, very kind of you. But your attempt at turning my point on it's head for demonstrating it's absurdity is as fallacious as my original assertion. This isn't a slippery slope argument. It's just hard for me to determine how it is that some people are so damn sure they're right about where to draw the line. It is no more absurd to look to a consolidation of all govermental functions at a national level than it is to merely cut them off at this or that point. Democracy means little to me personally and a benign monarchy would probably do us just as well in our daily lives. But if you believe in democracy then the erosion or elimination of local authority is counter to your principles.

Apart from the flag-waving reasons and gushy moralisms, there are solid pragmatic grounds on which to support democratic rule and liberal government; as Sen notes, for instance, a ruling class whose interests are forcibly aligned with those of the population, broadly defined, will be unlikely to allow a famine, in contrast to a dictatorial regime. Posner goes through democratic reasoning in some detail in his Breaking the Deadlock, but it's dry and beyond my competence to summarize here.

This is not an "Indianapolis" question, except insofar as IndyWorks gets us closer to a rational statewide reorganization of an obsolete system. The list of responsibilities you assign to your local government, furthermore, is far beyond the capability of any township government, and even if capable, we wouldn't want the townships to assume those responsibilities, because there is neither the media oversight nor the electoral institutions to support proper governance at the township level. And, in fact, were the townships capable of doing all of that, there would still be the question of how large a township should be--and the answer simply must be "larger than two or three thousand people" (or less), which is the size of a great many of Indiana's thousand-plus townships. (Anyway, what would we do with the more-competent, better-supervised, and better-constructed institutions of county and municipal governance were townships to assume these functions?)

Mismanagement, inefficiency, and all the other ills of Indianapolis's unified government are continuing problems, although they are not unique, even to the public sector. There are many institutional reasons for those ills. However, at the township level, things are worse, and will continue to be worse, because the logic of the system allows an entrenched and obscure class of officeholders to provide bad service at horrendous cost in order to fulfill outdated duties.

Hmm. Miseducation eats a large % of the 56% of the total Indiana budget. In comparison, townships are peanuts. I could see a reform of townships but they look like a smoke screen to divert attention from where tax dollars are willfully burned for no good reason.

"I submit that there is no evidence to back up this assertion. Mismanagement, poor responsiveness and questionable if not non-existent civic planning reveal themselves in the many problems Indianapolis faces today."

Apparently you haven't been reading what's been written in the last three weeks. Townships seem to have numerous problems:

* Township governments are wasteful charity operators: Warren Township, as the Star noted in its March 28 editorial, wastes 65 cents of every poor relief dollar on overhead; the rest actually goes to charity. Lawrence spent 61 cents of every dollar on overhead according to an April 11 editorial (which you can find at http://www2.indystar.com/articles/8/235886-4988-021.html); Center spent 66 cents of every dollar on overhead. Forbes magazine's William Barrett, the leading expert on charitable efficiency, notes that good charities spend less than 15 cents per dollar on overhead.

* Spotty book-keeping: The Star's March 27 editorial details results of audits by the State Board of Accounts. And they're not pretty:

"• In Wayne Township, the Board of Accounts found that several payments lacked supporting documentation such as receipts or invoices. Pricing for others "did not match" the invoices on hand and several purchases didn't appear either to have been authorized by supervisors or even delivered.

"In his formal response to the board, Township Trustee Daniel Gammon said his bookkeepers have been instructed to not pay for any item that cannot be matched with an invoice.

"• The board cited Center Township in 2002 for deficiencies in its record-keeping, including improperly recorded transactions and untimely posting of payroll data. Center Township Trustee Carl Drummer -- who initially opposed Indianapolis Works but has since taken a neutral stance -- says those issues were resolved in part by replacing one staff member with a certified public accountant.

"• In 2001, Washington Township paid $13,500 to Vinson Enterprises, a firm owned by one of its firefighters, to maintain its cemeteries. Yet according to the Board of Account's 2003 report, the township didn't have a formal contract in place. That went against the board's protocol for such arrangements.

"In a formal response to the board, township Trustee Gwen Horth, who is not opposed to consolidation, wrote that there was no statute demanding that all contracts must be in writing and that it would have been too costly to do so."

And those are just the items cited in the first editorial, which one can find at http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:KLl2DBOY6oAJ:www.indystar.com/articles/3/232062-7103-104.html+indianapolis+star+editorial+and+warren+township&hl=en&client=firefox-a

*Difficulty keeping to a budget: The township fire departments were supposed to spend $89 million on their activities in 2004. At least that was what they told the Department of Local Government Finance. Instead, as the Star points out in an April 3 editorial from the Star, the departments spent $7 million over their budgets.

*Nepotism: Don't forget the reports that came out in late March about township assessors hiring their relatives and Jack Sandlin continuing a contract with a firm owned by his wife.

Honestly, I can't see how anyone can argue that township government should continue to exist?

What is the position of the Editorial Board on this matter? Do you suppose that what reporters report upon has no relationship to what Editors would like to see occur?
How about finding something productive for Firemen to do for the 95% of the time they are sitting on their brains? "Overhead" in township government is similar-you pay for it being there when it is needed. You want to save money? Examine the non working in a typical fire house.

Paul Musgrave still does not know what he is talking about. If he would sit one day in a Trustee office he would have a more clear understanding on how important these offices are. Maybe hw should go up to Gary and ask that Trustee if she is not needed. Her staff is very large due to her very, very large client base. If Paul Musgrave had ever needed a Trustee for help I am sure he would be barking up another tree. Its a shame he is not a very intelligent man.

Yeah, maybe I should take a degree in political science or Indiana history or get some practical experience in local politics.

The experience of this or that trustee does not answer an objection to the systemic critique I'm making. And the IndyWorks plan clearly does provide for townships to play a role--but a much more rational one.

By the way, dear readers, nothing in the comment above has been modified in any way.

"Paul Musgrave still does not know what he is talking about. If he would sit one day in a Trustee office he would have a more clear understanding on how important these offices are. Maybe hw should go up to Gary and ask that Trustee if she is not needed. Her staff is very large due to her very, very large client base."

How can one really tell it's large because she handles a lot of requests or because she's making sure she keeps up her patronage (a typical situation in Lake County). Anyone who read the C.O.M.P.E.T.E report knows that Calumet township spent $1.81 in overhead for every dollar it gave out in assistance; it probably spent 60 or more cents of every poor relief dollar on overhead. So who is the trustee truly helping?

As for Paul not knowing what he's talking about? Well, since most township supporters have probably never spent more than a week outside of the state of Indiana, they probably believe that they're truly doing God's work. Any outsider would be able to surmise otherwise.