In his most recent partisan Tribune writing in support of creating a new parks district, Ed Clere says, "In addition, private donors are ready to provide major funding for new facilities, including a public swimming pool, but they are hesitant to start writing checks until they see a long-term commitment to parks."
Who's ready to provide funding?
For what facilities?
Where would the facilities be located?
What problems do these people or groups perceive with current elected officials that make them think any donation made now wouldn't be used for its intended purpose?
If such perceptions exist, why weren't local elected officials and the public who put them in office allowed a chance to respond and debate in a transparent fashion before this legislation was proposed?
Are those potential donors not capable of addressing the situation on a local level, rather than going through the state legislature?
If the city has historically provided more parks funding and the intent is equalization, why would county officials be given the authority to appoint five parks district commission members and the city only four? Likewise, why would bonding decisions fall under the authority of the county rather than city council?
Do constituents get to know these things before being asked to support a maneuver that will place the local parks system in an anomalous condition another step removed from voters, with the only corrective measure being an appeal to the state legislature where we enjoy much less representation?
In his screed, Rep. Clere suggested that an appointed parks board would be more effective precisely because it would be removed from politics.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet we changed the school board from appointed to elected for what reason? By Clere's logic, that makes the school system more political, not less. But the GOP keeps saying that politics shouldn't be in the schools. I'm very confused.
Given what happened yesterday, perhaps that's the whole point.
A few things that I know.
ReplyDelete1)The NAFC Parks Board is currently comprised of individuals that give a great deal of their time for no benefit. They are appointed, but are involved, thoughtful, forward thinking and great stewards of our Parks.
2)The current system of having to beg for monies from City and County Council, while getting approval from Mayor and County Commissioners is backwards and antiquated. The Board's hands are tied constantly being caught in the middle of pushing and pulling. Great developments and projects have fallen through the cracks because of one side or the other dragging their feet.
3)It is idiotic that the Parks Department has gone so long without a County Parks Capital Improvements line item despite constant requests from the Board to receive one. Updates and Major repairs are and have been nearly impossible because of this oversight. A great deal of money lives outside New Albany in the County; City residents should not be the only ones shouldering the responsibility of improvements.
4) The current Superintendent is the most fiscally responsible official in New Albany and Floyd County.
5)Several major parks projects in the past decade have occurred due to major donations from individuals with deep pockets but with strict apolitical intentions. If these benefactors are the sort to which Rep. Clere is referring, then we need to grant them their anonymity. While it may be wrong of Mr. Clere to use them as a bargaining chip (essentially politicizing those that would rather not be) I believe their intentions are good.
6) I am not speaking for the Board, but as far as my years of experience go, I know they would welcome anyone with concerns or information to attend the Board Meetings. The Parks Department is a hopelessly under-appreciated entity and more involvement by concerned citizen would be greatly appreciated.
I say all of this as an individual that worked for and with the Board and Superintendent for many years. Again I have the utmost confidence in their abilities. I believe a Parks Board that is appointed instead of elected would be ideal, but I believe that the transition into those posts would be much easier if a Parks District were to be created from the current members. I left my position with the Parks Department on less than amicable terms, but I have no problems in giving them my full support.
"Several major parks projects in the past decade have occurred due to major donations from individuals with deep pockets but with strict apolitical intentions."
ReplyDeleteDoesn't that suggest this legislation isn't necessary for those types of donors to participate?
I don't have a problem with people making anonymous donations. I have a problem, as alluded, with fashioning legislation to supposedly appease those donors when the public has no idea who they are and what concerns they have, if any.
If the current "begging" system is backwards and antiquated, isn't it so not just for local departments within local government but for the relationship that exists between local and state government?
If the impetus for this bill is thinking it's a progressive solution to legislative meddling, why isn't the same separation agenda being pursued for public school systems as Roger mentions? State government control of local schools has steadily increased and Clere thus far seems supportive of increasing it even further.
Why is autonomy of this sort a good idea for a local parks district but not a school district?
It just goes to show that none of this "reform" business has anything to do with principles of limited government or self-determination as is so often advertised, or even much to do with logical consistency.
I'm not going to speak on the differences between the School Corporation and the Parks Department other than, I am pretty sure the County has a Capital Improvements Budget for the School Corporation. They had no trouble redesigning that High School on Old Vincennes to look like a cathedral to an education god.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile the Parks Department has to beg a Casino that our County shot down in order to replace 40-year-old bathrooms in County parks.
As it stands the Parks Board has to adhere to the requirements of at least 4 entities just to buy pencils. And then wonder if the next year they are going to be told to go out and find their own group insurance because the two family members in the department with cancer are too costly for the City to pay for. (Oh, by the way, after cancer won the Department was asked if they'd like to rejoin).
The possibility of a Parks District and the ability for the Board to have dedicated dollars supporting it was in the works long before Clere thought about politics. This is the first great opportunity to make a major leap forward. Please don't let your personal displeasure of a particular politician(s) cloud the fact that this could be a great thing for New Albany and Floyd County. This is precisely the kind of forward thinking that I have come to love from progressive blogs such as this one.
Great parks make for great lives. Everyone benefits from great places to recreate: families and local businesses.
But that's the point, Greg:
ReplyDeleteThe school system having enough autonomy to build on their own (well or poorly depending on whom you ask) was/is viewed as a problem fixed with increased legislative oversight. With the parks, the very same people want to go in the exact opposite direction.
Why?
Talking about Clere, good or bad, doesn't address the policy inconsistencies, except to point out that he's being inconsistent right along with them.
Also, I would like to re-state that I believe that Clere implying that major benefactors dangling donations as a carrot to pass this legislation is a joke. Either they are conditionally donating or they aren't
ReplyDeleteI don't want the money or land if it's a political bribe regardless of what that legislation may be and I hope the Board and the rest of the County's residents see it that way too.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteIt's not an apples to apples comparison. The Parks budget is a tiny fraction compared to that of the School Corporation. The Parks Department currently has NO autonomy and as a result is left to continually do more with much less year after year and NO political leg to stand on.
Again, this does not work without elected Board members and it does not work without much more involvement from residents at Board meetings and in the recurring 5-year Master Planning process.
Left to the current situation Parks will continue to struggle to maintain all-the-while having more users than ever before. The City jumped at the opportunity to tax and entice residents to give money to a private organization to do their recreating downtown while closing down a local pool. And more people are moving to the County where they don't have to pay an Improvements line item but expect better quality parks.
This legislation levels the playing field. It puts money into the hands of the people who's sole purpose is to improve the lives of the county as a whole. You see a potential misuse of tax dollars and potential abuse by the State. I see an opportunity to cut red tape for once and streamline a good organization's ability to do its job.
The similarity between current parks and schools legislation:
ReplyDeleteIn both cases, locally elected officials will have less say in policy and outcomes while the state's influence will increase.
Local option:
A good portion of the problem seems to be that the county hasn't/won't contribute its fair share. This seems to be a recurring problem. Acknowledge that the arrangement is inequitable and be done with it.
If the city is interested in investing in parks and the county isn't, let it be so for their own parks rather than giving even more direct funding oversight over to the state DLGF. In that way, the city parks department would answer to a single, locally elected fiscal body. The mayor may have appointment and veto power but that's it.
One has to ask the question: Regardless of how one feels about this particular current legislation, why does/should state government have authority over local parks in the first place? What does that do for the "efficiency" that's being used to justify the hostile takeovers we're seeing? Wouldn't lessened state involvement simplify most of these governing equations if, as advertised, that's actually the goal? And wouldn't local citizens have more direct influence on outcomes?
A much better solution than this would be to elect people who "get" it. That didn't used to be such a radical idea.
ReplyDeleteI believe this may be a good answer for some of the problems that the Park Department faces. Is it the only answer? Probably not. It's not perfect, but what is?
ReplyDeleteI do see the irony but agree with Greg. I'm not willing to kill a potential beneficial policy just to point out inconsistencies in political thought and actions.
The biggest problem that I have with proposal is, there doesn't appear to have been much, if any, consultation with the city beforehand. Which does lead back to "politics".
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is the aforementioned deleted post. It was unedited and illegible (not that it's much better now).
ReplyDeleteDissolving the union between the two is a major problem. They were separate and attempted to operate as so for many year through the same office.
Problem is, there is no way to afford the man power, equipment and resources if separate. Then there are issues such as Sam Peden Community Park technically being a County park despite being in the City.
It is not a feasible option and would throw any sense of efficiency out the window.
Floyd County is a small but with a good amount of money unifying the Parks is/was a step in the right direction. I believe it is a major step in the right direction. Why have to separate entities when one can clearly handle the job if all parties pay their share.
Since we're talking about solutions, the true solution would be for the City and County to come together, levee their own flat tax between the two to give the parks the dedicated line items and remove the State from the picture altogether. That would be the fiscally responsible 'local' option.
"A much better solution than this would be to elect people who 'get' it. That didn't used to be such a radical idea."
ReplyDeleteExactly. This legislation, however, will make it more difficult for local voters to have an impact. Their ability to have an impact is much greater at the local rather than state level. That's why I typically reject initiatives that cede local power to the state, which we've been seeing a lot of lately. State legislators' only answer to local issues as of late seems to be "Let us decide".
And I don't necessarily disagree, Greg, with the suggestion of a joint city/county flat tax. It should be a local decision that, quite frankly, in which the state has no involvement.
If we want to see real reform, it would mean removing the state from many of these situations-- parks, education, local budgets and tax levels, etc.
How much does anybody want to bet the governor and state legislators will go for that? I've personally asked Clere about it and was told the local government bugdeting portion of that was too big an issue, which struck me as odd, especially given his willingness to set education policy for the entire state as he voted to do yesterday.
From my column last week:
ReplyDelete"I believe that the Parks Department Board should develop a multi-year plan and the city and the county get on board and each pay 50 percent. Any capital projects should be financed through a cumulative fund based on the plan. Any emergency or new plans should be brought before the councils and paid for by Riverboat or excess EDIT funds. There is no reason to create another level of government to pay for our parks."
Here is a comment posted on my column at newsandtribune.com
If you want an intelligent explanation of a subject it is clear you know little about, Mr. Nash, I suggest you read Representative Clere's column for this week. It tells you all you need to know about how the parks bill came about, why it is needed, and how it would all work.
Before you go writing against things, you might want to do more homework.
Clere Channel at work??
If a park district is the answer for New Albany/Floyd County why wouldn't we make it an OPTION for every county in the State? This is called special legislation and without a legitimate reason it is unconstitutional, and obviously I'm not the only one that feels this way being that the bill was killed in committee this morning.
ReplyDeleteMarcey,
ReplyDeletePlease clarify the "unconstitutional" statement. As far as I understood IC 36-1-03 circa 2004 allowed for the possibility of such a district. I suppose I misunderstood and assumed that such an option was now possible.
I know cities/towns (i.e. Clarksville, Hammond) are districts to help in gifts, bonding, etc. I suppose I am unclear about counties.
Thanks!