2. Problems, Challenges, Capabilities

Topics

  • Leadership and Political Culture
  • Assessment of the Quality and Capability of County Government
  • Monopoly on Decision-Making in the Brown County Government – A Closed System
  • Local GOP leadership
  • Issues at the local level are not left or right, red or blue
  • Examples of Decisions from a Closed System

Leadership and Political Culture – How we do things around here

I first got involved in the county regarding declining school enrollment and lack of affordable housing. This led to volunteering to serve on the school’s strategic planning committee initiated by the new superintendent at the time, Laura Hammack, and the Brown County Redevelopment Commission (2016-2017).

  • 2016 – Letter in the Democrat regarding the first referendum in response to a letter by David Shaffer – then School superintendent.  The reference to declining enrollments and affordable housing led me to volunteer at the Redevelopment Commissioner (RDC). Students from IU/SPEA -Masters Public Administration (MPA) program published two research projects on our economic base which impacts enrollment and affordability.

My Position – Brown County Music Center.  I support public meetings and allowing citizens to express their opinions as to the options – Sell, Keep, or Update Agreements.   These meetings would also provide the opportunity for fact-gathering and information sharing. It will also provide the opportunity to increase community support.  Any final changes to policy would have to be approved by the Commissioners and County Council.

With regard to the Brown County Music Center, my question about the process for assessing community support for a government-owned versus a private-sector venue was not appreciated by county elected officials (all Republican), which may have contributed to my not being reappointed to the RDC in 2018.  Among the projects I supported was working with teams from Indiana University Schools of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA), Masters Public Administration (MPA) program. They completed two projects on the topic  of economic sustainability.

All three commissioners who supported this government-owned and operated venue were Republican. Of all the county council members who supported the venue, six of the seven were Republican. The option of local business leaders financing this venue was not discussed, nor was there any other option for how the revenue from the Innkeepers’ Tax (a county asset) could be invested.

As a lifelong Conservative, which I define as sustaining what works and working to improve what does not within the context of the Constitution, I do not believe that the government has a role and responsibility to own and operate a music venue – it is not a core function of government. At the same time, as a member of the Redevelopment Commission (RDC), we offered to support public meetings to gather citizen input on the project and stated I would accept the community’s final decision. No public meetings sponsored by the commissioners or council to listen to citizen input were ever held.

At that point, I opted out of any direct involvement with the “local” Republican Party that advocated for the project and the fast-track process without public input. I consistently vote as a Republican and favor those who support fiscal conservatism despite the party affiliation and are also committed to solutions where everyone can benefit and not just the few.

Getting “voted off” what some may perceive as “RINO Island” was motivating and gave me more time to understand the county’s system of government, including gaining insight into how decisions are made, by whom, and why.

The local GOP is led by realtors who publicly advocate for development. This relationship introduces the perception of a conflict of interest. I do not recall there ever being a development-related project they opposed – despite opposition from the community. Now that projects have been approved to expand sewers, more opportunities should be created to benefit from development and real estate-related transactions. Is it time to thank them for their service and elect new leaders?

I am not opposed to development if it is supported by the citizenry in the context of an effective County Comprehensive Plan. When using tax dollars, public meetings are expected, and fact-based assessments include consideration of all sides of an argument. Too many of our elected officials operate within a post-modern ideology where their opinions are equated with facts.

The one responsibility of all citizens is to serve as a jurist, be it in the context of a trial or a proposed government policy, to understand the evidence, facts, options, options, arguments, and counterarguments, to ask questions, and to make or support a decision. This process incorporates critical thinking.

I attended school and county government meetings and routinely attend commissioner and council meetings. I have attended hundreds of meetings since 2016 (estimated at over four hundred) and have invested thousands of hours of additional research to gain clarity on various issues. The value was understanding how the county operates and recognizing how small changes can lead to significant improvements that result in outcomes where we can all benefit.

These learning opportunities led me to start collecting data and strategic plans to learn more about other issues, including our economic base, tax policies, and culture.

If anyone has spent more time researching issues and sharing information on meetings and on social media, I would love to meet them. I share what I learn at Independent Voters of Brown County, IN, and the Facebook group Brown County Matters. I have also authored articles published in the Brown County Democrat.

Assessment of the Quality and Capability of County Government

The U.S. system of government was designed to enable We the People to work together in pursuit of a more perfect Union. Citizens are “top management.” We can hold our elected representatives accountable but retain responsibility for the results. The strength of our system is citizen engagement and maintaining checks and balances on power. Many of these checks and balances have eroded over time at the national and local levels.

Better Process – Critical Thinking Required

Making changes that lead to improvements includes identifying the following information:

  • Who are all the citizens (stakeholders) affected by the change in the near, mid, and long term?
  • What do they need? What is or will be provided?
  • What are citizens’ expectations for the services to be delivered?
  • What feedback do citizens need to assess the results?

In contrast, too many decisions in county government benefit the few at the expense of the many. Individuals and groups with special interests believe that what is best for them is best for all. This belief is morally compromising.

When a solution is proposed, what is the problem? Example: Community Decision-Making Process. Note: This process integrates critical thinking and was adapted from the U.S. military’s decision-making process.

  • Organizational Capability Assessment.  On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being Low and 5 being Excellent, the average organization would score a 2.0 described as “it works.”  Small changes in County Government would lead to significant improvement in results.

On the scope of change, there are three basic categories: sustain and maintain what is working (the majority), incremental improvement, or radical. The higher the degree of change, the higher the risk of failure that can be mitigated through the application of a more deliberate decision-making process.

Citizen/Jurist

To reinforce, the one responsibility required of all American citizens is to serve as a jurist. A citizen/jurist is expected to apply critical thinking skills, including assessing the quality of arguments for and against a position. A jurist reviews all the evidence, the testimonies from witnesses and experts, options, and the arguments made for and against a respective position and then decides. Other citizens (judges/appellate courts) are involved to ensure compliance with the decision-making process.

Monopoly on Decision-Making in the Brown County Government – A Closed System

Brown County has evolved into a one-party monopoly on political power. A monopoly represents a closed system where a few individuals can and do determine the policy and priorities for all. In other words, few can believe that what is best for them is best for all.

A closed system operates at a lower level of quality and can morally compromise or corrupt those who work within it. The local Republican party influences who can run for office and who may be acceptable for appointments to boards and commissioners. This situation is reflected in the quip (paraphrasing comedian George Carlin), It’s a “small” club, and you may not be in it.

Another adverse consequence of a closed system is that it creates and can sustain a sense of apathy and learned helplessness. Citizens can conclude that they can do nothing and give up, accept their fate, and choose not to get involved in the local political theatre.

The Primary Election usually determines the winners in November.

The Republican Primary elections generally determine (with a high probability) the winners in the general election in November. Unless they vote in the Republican primary, Democrats may have little to no voice in county government. Their candidates in November do have a chance, but there is a low probability of winning unless there are divisions within the local GOP.

Local GOP Leadership

All eleven Republican precinct chairs were on the ballot in this presidential election year. Democrat precinct chairs are in the off years. Precinct chairs vote for the party chair in March following the November election. The GOP leadership influences the direction of the county and policy priorities.

Issues at the local level are not left or right, red or blue

Even though Republicans and Democrats can have opposite views on political and cultural issues reflected in the state and national elections, we can and do find common ground on county issues. These would include issues regarding taxes, quality of life, cost of living, health and safety, education, voting integrity, conditions of roads and bridges, zoning, and the overall vision for the county.

Voting Centers

One of the exceptions to the monopoly on decisions regards the Election Board. This board currently consists of two Republicans and a Democrat. The decisions affecting voting systems must be unanimous. For the 2024 elections, the local GOP wanted to fast-track a move to transition eleven precincts into five voting centers. The change can also lead to purchasing new machines. These new machines also record votes on paper versus manually completed paper ballots.

The Democrat election board member (with the support of the party chair) identified the position to delay any decisions until 2026 (which I support) to allow for community input and further analysis. This decision is also supported by the League of Women Voters and Conservatives (Indiana First Action) in the county, who support paper ballots and hand-counting.

Feb 19, 2024. The County Clerk proposed that the public hearing and vote be tabled. Her motion was unanimously approved.

Brown County Schools –  County says YES to Referendum

“A total of 4,109 ballots were cast out of 13,24 6 registered voters, for 31% voter turnout. (1)  Of the 4,109 votes cast, “Brown County voted Yes (54.7 percent) for the Brown County Schools to increase property taxes paid to schools by homeowners and businesses for eight years to fund the Taxpayer Investment Plan, which will include providing for teacher and staff salaries, benefits and programs and funding the Career Resource Center.”   Ref: Democrat, Chalkbeat  Note: Of the total votes cast, some voters may have chosen/neglected to vote on the referendum.

(1) Election Results, Clerks Office

May 2024 results

YES votes 2122
NO votes 1754
Total: 3876
Margin: 368

Source: Indiana Public Media

My Position: I would support public forums in 2024-25 to address the concerns and questions that the public has raised on a variety of issues including declining enrollment and possible consolidations in the future.Intent it build community support on the way ahead.

Background

Brown County Schools fall into a hybrid political category. School board members do not have to declare a political party affiliation. Unions tend to support positions associated with the left and conservatives with positions of the right, including tuition support for students attending non-public schools. Indiana is one of the leaders in the nation in funding school choice options.

In 2022, a referendum sustaining and increasing the property tax rate was defeated by citizens by 333 votes.  A petition for a new referendum was added to the May Primary ballot. Turnout in primaries is traditionally low. Early voting began on April 9, 2024.

  • In the 2022 General Election in November, 2,694 (47%) voters favored the proposed operating referendum, and 3,027 (53%) voted against it, for a total of 5,721 votes.
  • In the 2022 primaries, voter turnout was 31% where only where only 3,983 people voted. In the 2022 General Election, turnout was 47%, and 6,128 people voted.
General Primary
Referendum Nov-22 % May-24 % Diff
YES votes 2694 47.1% 2122 54.7% -572
NO votes 3027 52.9% 1754 45.3% -1273
Total: 5721 100.0% 3876 100.0% -1845
Margin: 333 368

Like the Music Center, I am concerned about the process. In 2022, social media posts criticized the school’s argument. In this case, many of the “jurist” citizens believed they were only provided with a one-sided closing argument, which contributed to the “No” vote.

School enrollment has been declining since 2007/2008. This contributes to less revenue.  In 2022, the Superintendent stated that cutting schools was not an option. If that is still the case, what is the argument for potentially having more staff and infrastructure than is needed? A good argument might persuade some voters to support and accept the referendum.

Problems With a Monopoly

Power corrupts. Centralizing power is never a good thing. Power can be more addicting than drugs. When given the power to make decisions that affect thousands, some individuals are more susceptible to an abuse of power than others.

What is even more insidious is that a closed system can morally compromise or corrupt those who work within it – and they might not even realize they have been compromised.  They can come to believe that what may be best for them or their group is best for all. This situation is reflected in the theory if you put good people in a bad system, the system wins most, if not all, of the time. It is up to the citizens (voters) to be vigilant in maintaining the needed checks and balances on power.

Go along to get along. The aim of maintaining power leads to supporting candidates and appointees who choose to go along to get along and do as expected. And some individuals may think they can make some changes without running afoul of the “monopoly.”

Unelected Commissioner and Council Member?  Given the monopoly and the desire to centralize power, some candidates selected for elected offices and appointments may not have the time, passion, capabilities, or commitment to learn, share knowledge, and support needed changes that can benefit everyone. This situation creates a power vacuum that can be filled by a few in the local GOP leadership, who can then serve as an unelected commissioner or council member.

  • An incentive that has been offered to part-time officials has been health insurance coverage. The county cost can range on average from $14,000–17,000 per person. The council’s salary is $5,814, and the commissioner’s salary is $20,552.

Financial Management. Poor fiscal management and oversight over the last few years have led to a habit of spending more money than we receive. This practice depleted reserves to include the Rainy Day Fund. Increases in health insurance costs also contributed to the problem.

Capital Improvement Plan and Budget. Until last year, the commissioners (with the support of the council) refused to develop a capital improvement plan and budget to identify and budget for needed infrastructure repairs and replacements. This resulted in underreporting financial obligations.  The lack of a plan puts the county at financial risk when a critical repair is needed, and there is no available funding.

This lack of due diligence resulted in repeat audit findings by the State Board of Accounts (SBOA), which were ignored by the commissioners, county council, and auditor. Voters are expected to demand accountability from their elected officials. Newly elected Commissioner Sanders (2022), with the support of the auditor, has taken the lead in his first year in office to draft a plan and budget.

  • Capability and Cost of Poor Quality. On a scale of 1 to 5, with five being the best, the capability of the Brown County political monopoly would be rated as a two – described as “It works.” As a general rule, the cost of poor quality at level two could range from 20% to 40% of the budget. Incremental improvements can reduce this cost.

Examples of Decisions from a Closed System

Request for Information (RFI). Too often, when I have asked for public information, such as a memo or other documents supporting a decision, if the county does not respond within 30 days, I have to file a formal complaint with Indiana’s Public Access Counselor (PAC) to obtain the information. It can take two to four months to get information that, in some cases, could have taken five minutes to produce. Delaying a response is a tactic used to discourage citizen involvement and demonstrates a contempt for the citizenry.

  • Indiana Open Door Laws Code 5-14-1.5  A.rticle in the Democrat: Interview with Indiana’s Public Access (to information) Counselor on the Open Door Laws. Sometimes, it has taken me months to get information that could have been provided in minutes. “Brown County Democrat Opening Doors – Public Access Laws. by Dakota Bruton, May 8, 2024

The Brown County Music Center (BCMC). The only public meetings held by the commissioners and council regarding the acceptability of this project were to approve it. Revenue from the Innkeeper’s Tax (a county asset) was used as collateral for the loan. In addition to a Music Center, this revenue could have been employed to fund any project that promotes tourism. Wikipedia identifies over twenty-five niche categories of tourism markets.

Without a vote by elected officials, unelected officials determined that 75% of any excess profits from the BCMC would be donated to the Community Foundation and only 25% to the county. This distribution may be changed to 50/50.

Indian Hill Road and Railroad Crossing Closing. Indian Hill Road and the railroad crossing were closed by the commissioners without a public hearing or notifying the stakeholders that would be affected by the closing. The road and crossing were closed with little deliberation and without any facts justifying the decision. Further, Commissioners Pittman, Biddle, and Anderson signed a closing agreement with the Indiana Railroad before they took the official vote to close the crossing.

Latest update: Part 5 Indian Hill – The Final Season – maybe

In addition to the crossing, closing Indian Hill Road also cut off access to the Tecumseh Trail. This trail is considered one of the top fifty trails in the country by Backpack Magazine. It has taken stakeholders three years to push back on the change that led to the county’s successful petition to INDOT to reopen. We have one year (from September 28, 2023) to develop an INDOT-approved plan. This has recently been extended. This will be followed by identifying the necessary funding. Intangible costs include the inconvenience to residents and the higher risk to residents in the area. These included longer commute times, longer response times for emergency services, and longer and more dangerous detours required by farm vehicles. Note: The original farming family that granted the easement to the railroad can now no longer easily access one of their fields.

Brown County Wastewater Strategic Plan. Commissioners and council appointees to the Brown County Regional Sewer District (BCRSD) Board obtained grants and taxpayer funds (over $100K) to develop a “county” wastewater strategic plan supported by a water quality study.

The BCRSD Board refused to host any public meetings to gather citizen input on this strategy, nor did they hold any public meetings to present the final plan and address any questions or concerns.

  • Presentation of the plan, strategy, and watershed study are available on the BCRSD Website.

The president of the commissioners (Jerry Pittman) and the president of the council (Gary Huett) supported this decision by the BCRSD board not to hold public meetings to present their strategy and justify the need. Note the commissioners and council appoint members to the BCRSD.

  • The BCRSD Strategic Plan and Watershed Study supported a request for funding via a Preliminary Engineers Report (PER) that resulted in state officials approving $39 million for just the first phase of the project.
    • Speculations to justify the need include:  76% of systems in the Bean Blossom watershed need repairs or replacements. Soils in Brown County are inadequate for septic systems. In reference to soils, if this is the case, then why does the State allow septic system permits?
    • Unanswered question on the justification of need.
  • Further, there may be a perception that Brown County’s Impaired Waterways are the result of an inadequate, failing sanitary system. This perception is not true.
    • “Figure 33 details that pastureland loads more E.coli to Brown County streams than other sources under all modified septic failure modeling scenarios. Only if 100% of documented septic systems are failing do they contribute a significant volume of E.coli to the entirety of Brown County. When individual sample site drainages are reviewed, the Lake Monroe Watershed loads more E.coli to Brown County Streams than Bean Blossom Creek Watershed streams.” Ref: Appendix B, 2021 Watershed Study (WSS). pg 70.

Internal Controls. I wrote a letter to the governor and to state and federal officials regarding their process for approving project funding and validating the justification of need. Legislative changes may be needed. A county health department cannot develop standards for assessing the quality of septic systems that exceed state standards. A Technical Review Panel (TRP) reviews and approves any proposed changes. Shouldn’t this standard apply to county regional sewer districts (RSD) as well?

Currently, there is a risk of possible litigation due to a lack of a clear and specific justification of need. Risks may emerge regarding the acquisition of easements and any eminent domain-related actions that force residents to forfeit property rights and pay for unwanted services.

Commissioner Office Reorganization. In 2022, the commissioners, council, and auditor decided a full-time commissioner assistant was unnecessary. They converted the full-time commissioner administrative assistant to a part-time receptionist/clerical position. They also agreed that the county needed a full-time human resource (HR) director.

The former commissioner involved with the change also claimed to be the first “full-time” commissioner in county history. This led to the question about the contributions of the other two commissioners. She was defeated in the 2022 primary.

In 2023, Commissioners Pittman and Wolpert decided they needed a full-time assistant and that an assistant to the assistant was also needed. No analysis was presented to justify this decision. The county council rubber-stamped their decision with little to no questions.

I filed a formal complaint with Indiana’s Public Access Counselor to obtain more information about the analysis that led to the change. No public meetings (working sessions) were held to discuss the re-organization and financial impact.

Surprise – Defunding a Position. In addition to two new full-time positions for the Commissioner’s office, Commissioners Pittman and Wolpert decided to defund the human resource (HR) director position. They did this at a public meeting on Nov 16, 2023, when the HR director was present and unaware that the position was being eliminated. Pittman and Wolpert erroneously claimed that the council approved this decision at the time.

Note: The former HR director ran as an independent county clerk in the 2022 election. The monopoly most likely did not welcome the competition to their preferred candidate. Would this have contributed to the decision to defund the position?