Reorg: The Fat Lady has not sung
In an interesting twist the White River Township Board has filed the paperwork to put the reorganization plan on the November 2010, yes 2010 is correct, ballot. According to the reorganization law the paperwork needs to be filed 60 days before the election even though election laws says August 1st. When the legislature changed the law on referendums this year they didn’t change all the wording in the reorganization statute.
However it would appear that reorganization statute would trump the election law when you read this portion of the law:
IC 36-1.5-1-6 Provisions of this article inconsistent with other laws
Sec. 6. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, to the extent the provisions of this article are inconsistent with the provisions of any other general, special, or local law, the provisions of this article are controlling, and compliance with this article shall be treated as compliance with the conflicting law.
As added by P.L.186-2006, SEC.4.
Here is the portion of the statute that conflicts with the revised state election law:
IC 36-1.5-4-27 County election board placing public question on ballot
Sec. 27. After the county recorder of each county in which reorganizing political subdivisions are located has notified the county election board that a public question on a plan of reorganization is eligible to be placed on the ballot, the county election board shall place the public question on the ballot in accordance with IC 3-10-9 on the first regularly scheduled general election or municipal election (excluding any primary elections) that will occur in all of the precincts of the reorganizing political subdivisions at least sixty (60) days after the required notices are received.
As added by P.L.186-2006, SEC.4. Amended by P.L.113-2010, SEC.111.
Next move?
UPDATE – 5:45PM: Here is the next move, this is from the Daily Journal’s email newsletter (visit their website here)
Bargersville calls for new merger study.
Reporter Joseph S. Pete writes: Bargersville wants a new merger study. A missed deadline to get the merger plan on the fall ballot presents an opportunity to start a new merger study, town attorney Nicholas Kile said. If the board doesn’t agree, Bargersville will give all township residents who live south of Stones Crossing Road the choice of being annexed into the town. The town council introduced a 2,500-acre annexation that Bargersville would pursue only if its proposal for a new merger study were rebuffed. Before starting that annexation, the town will try to begin a new round of talks over how to divide the Center Grove area. The town council voted 3-0 Monday to approve a resolution for a new merger study with the township. The resolution calls for a merger plan that wouldn’t force town government on residents who would rather be left alone.
Here is the original Bargersville resolution on reorganization presented to the White River Township Board in December of 2008.
Related posts (Automatically generated):
7 Responses to “Reorg: The Fat Lady has not sung”
White River Residents-do not want merger. ENOUGH SAID.
“DOC” & lINDA
Comment made on September 2nd, 2010 at 11:40 amThe Fat Lady has not Sung but the ‘thin lady’ in the Clerk’s office has cleared her throat.
I will be bewildered if the election board upholds the appeal to put this on the ballot after the timeline has passed.
we shall see which of the wheels is better greased: the wheel of politics or the wheel of laws that are written to keep all of us on the same level of participation.
Comment made on September 7th, 2010 at 3:09 pmJust put in on the ballot, let it get voted down, and it goes away for good. Yeesh.
Comment made on September 8th, 2010 at 1:29 pmMr. Baker, Regardless of the judicial outcome of this controversy, why have you made it your mission to prevent the voters of the township from settling the matter? You have put your personal vendetta against the merger above the rights of the rest of us to make the decision via the ballot box. You seem to be acting as a dictator rather than a unifier. As Joe said, “Put it on the ballot”. Let us vote and move on from there.
Comment made on September 8th, 2010 at 5:01 pmKen, if you really think the merger would have been passed by the residents of WRT, you cast negative aspersions upon your ability to represent the citizens of WRT if elected.
Why the cronies of the current and outgoing township trustee think they’re doing the citizens of WRT by keeping this measure from the ballot is beyond me. It has no chance of passing, but it can’t die until it gets voted away. Why people do not understand this, I will never know.
Comment made on September 8th, 2010 at 7:49 pmIt is sad that the voters are being denied the opportunity to vote on this issues since it has dominated the conversation and the last primary election.
Comment made on September 9th, 2010 at 8:03 amWasted time, wasted tax payer money and ill will has been churned up in this matter.
My personal belief is that the merger would not have passed, thus an end to the discussion for now. A clear, not a muddy conclusion would have happened.
The law though ambiguous need be followed.
This question will still hang out there until someone or someones decide it is worth pursuing again.
The “baggage of the day”, chicanery of the last few months and a lot of misunderstanding this time around will hamper any subsequent considerations.
The voters should have been the ones who decided this. Who won and who lost? We all lost this one.
I wish the plan would have been specific enough for the voters to have a clear understanding of what the impact or benefit of the merger would bring to the tax payer before it was voted through to allow it to be on the ballot.
Comment made on September 10th, 2010 at 12:25 pmMy contention all the way through this matter has been with the Advisory Board to insist the plan had clarity that the voters could understand. That the defined borders and tax rates be specific and who was to vote upon the matter.
I did not trust the leaders of the City of Greenwood to fill in the blanks in the plan and I sure did not think our Board had the strength of leadership to repesent the township to fill in the blanks with Greenwood’s influence.
Give the citizens the information needed and let them make the voted outcome be the answer to the defined question.
But don’t give the voters a ‘what if this occurs or that does not happen’ debacle of a plan and back away from your responsibility to represent the interest of the taxpayers and citizens that elected you.My challenge to the Advisory Board has been and continues to be: Demonstrate your leadership by recognizing the plan was not specific and had too many opportunities to be wrongly inturpeted. Send it back to the committee to fix before just passing it on and hoping for the best.
I think Ken Marshall sums it up as well as I could ever say; “Wasted time, wasted tax payer money and ill will has been churned up in this matter”.
I hope to calm the ill will to a point that we can, as a township, consider future opportunities to better our community in an environment of Trust and Respect and Honesty.
Leave a Comment