WRT Board member comments on process
This unsolicited letter was received from Joe Acker, WRT Board member. It is reprinted here without any editing of the content.
The board and the trustee do not privately talk to each other on topics considered ahead of the meetings because it is a violation of the open door policy. A meeting can be called by the trustee, the board president or any two board members and must be publicized to the public via newsprint seventy-two hours before the meeting with an agenda. The trustee operates the township and the board passes on the budget and is charged with sales and/or property swaps, and the merger of governmental units. The trustee has the right to his opinion and each board member to his opinion. The results, [dear reader], may not always be tidy but this is Democracy in action.
The board is handling the merger procedure because the no change will be automatic if no action is taken. Self-incorporation must be implemented by the citizenry. It is not feasible since their proposal must pass the county commissioners, the state legislature, and the governor and the three mile green space of the surrounding communities to approve and then be voted upon by the citizenry. There must be a plan of action and funds to provide services. Based on a city with virtually no industry, no major shopping centers and only a residential tax base. Assume 100 employees, plus housing of facilities and equipment plus the equipment itself and you will have an unsupportable city due to the state defining its annual budget.
We are trying to generate a new entity that incorporates old Greenwood and the township into a new entity and the new city will have a realigned city council that represents the 46k+ Greenwood and the 40k+ White River citizens. The result will be the fifth or sixth largest city in Indiana with two great school systems and all of the amenities associated with a metropolitan area, zoning, noise abatement, increased police service, increased allotments for street repair, parks, etc. Schools, fire and library are currently separate units.
Note: It’s been the practice of CenterGroveInc.org to publish unsolicited letters from public officials without asking permission. This is particularly true when they are addressed in such a manner as to indicate that publication is desired. (We will always respect any individuals request not to be published.) Furthermore, before we publish anything from a private citizen, other than a comment to our blog, we contact them and ask permission. It is under this standard that this posting was published.
Related posts (Automatically generated):
One Response to “WRT Board member comments on process”
I’d like to qualify my perspective. I am a member of Pleasant Township’s Board and have served as a member of the Indiana Township Association’s board representing all board members throughout Indiana’s 1,000+ townships.
I appreciate Mr. Acker’s thoughts and his impression of why and what he agreed to when his board approved the resolution to have a study conducted. However, I need to disagree with his description of the working relationships of trustee and board members due to concerns about there being a “violation of the open door policy”.
Indiana’s Public Meetings (Open Door Law) requirements are described in IC 5-14-1.5. The code does clearly prohibit some discussions between members of a body (e.g. the Township Board). But, it does not prohibit members of a legislative/fiscal body having discussions with the elected official of a governmental unit. In the case of Townships, regular discussions between individual board members and the Trustee can lead to enhancing the services provided; opening the path to discussions of new services or needs; and identify procedures that may need formal review and modification.
Indiana’s Public Access Counselor addressed a gathering of elected officials in Johnson County some time back to clarify what we could and could not do. The law was not presented as a means to prohibit communication but to keep the public’s business public. We need to insure that deliberations that reach a point of decision do not reach that point in private – but – that does not mean that two people can not talk to each other.
When a small body of three members is involved the line gets very fine regarding what is appropriate for discussion between any two members of that body since the two represent a majority. It is very easy to cross the line from discussion to debate leading to a decision so it is often best to avoid it.
A Trustee is not a member of the legislative or fiscal body. The Trustee speaking with any member of the board doesn’t risk violating the standards unless done in a serial format which is prohibited elsewhere in the chapter of the code.
If there are other reasons for Trustees and Township Board members not talking, so be it. But, it shouldn’t be attributed to requirements of the Public Meetings rules.
If anyone: desires more information; has a question about Public Access; or thinks they have an issue needing investigation; they can visit the Public Access Counselor’s web site at http://www.in.gov/pac/ for a wealth of information or to contact the folks who exercise oversight in this area.
Mike Gerrish
Comment made on February 12th, 2009 at 4:35 pmGreenwood
Leave a Comment