IBJNews

Lawmaker cries foul over Fishers vote endorsement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A state lawmaker is taking issue with a group that backs a new "hybrid city" government in an Indianapolis suburb and says she never endorsed the plan.

Republican Sen. Beverly Gard of Greenfield said she never endorsed a proposal under which Fishers would reorganize to a city with an appointed mayor and at-large council. Gard was listed as a supporter of the plan in mailers sent to Fishers residents.

Fishers, a community of 80,000 northeast of Indianapolis, is asking voters Tuesday to choose from one of three options: continue as a town run by seven council members and a town manager, reorganize as a city in combination with Fall Creek Township and have a council that chooses a mayor and hires a city manager; or become a second-class city with nine council members and an elected mayor.

The ballot questions that will resolve the issue are so complicated that it's taking an educational effort by supporters and opponents to help residents know which way to vote.

The proposal has divided residents. Signs supporting and opposing the move to become a city have popped up across town, and a lobbying group has filed a complaint with the state accusing the town of trying to steer residents toward the appointed mayor option.

Gard told The Indianapolis Star she thinks the "hybrid" city form of government would disenfranchise voters.

"I am really uncomfortable with the appointed mayor," said Gard, a 24-year lawmaker whose district reaches from Greenfield to Fishers. "I am also uncomfortable with the fact that council members, although they package it as running from districts, are voted on at large.

"I think that has the effect of disenfranchising people in a district, preventing them from picking the person they want."

Wayne Crane, who leads the Fishers reorganization effort, said Gard's image would be removed from websites promoting the option but disagreed with Gard's contention that a hybrid form of government would hurt voters.

"I think it's more representative and democratic to be able to vote for all of them," he said.

Gard said she expressed support for a part of the proposal that would eliminate township government but never agreed to be an official endorser. Her image appeared on the group's website, Facebook page and on postcards sent to area homes.

"They did not ask permission to do that," Gard said. "I think it's pretty bad policy. You don't go around doing that without letting people know."

Crane said he took Gard's communication as an endorsement but apologized for the mix-up, saying it was "inappropriate for us to move forward."

Crane, a Fishers investment banker, has argued that the hybrid is the best option and would eliminate township positions and save residents money.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. As I understand it, the idea is to offer police to live in high risk areas in exchange for a housing benefit/subsidy of some kind. This fact means there is a choice for the officer(s) to take the offer and receive the benefit. In terms of mandating living in a community, it is entirely reasonable for employers to mandate public safety officials live in their community. Again, the public safety official has a choice, to live in the area or to take another job.

  2. The free market will seek its own level. If Employers cannot hire a retain good employees in Marion Co they will leave and set up shop in adjacent county. Marion Co already suffers from businesses leaving I would think this would encourage more of the same.

  3. We gotta stop this Senior crime. Perhaps long jail terms for these old boozers is in order. There are times these days (more rather than less) when this state makes me sick.

  4. One option is to redistribute the payroll tax already collected by the State. A greater share could be allocated to the county of the workplace location as opposed to the county of residency. Not a new tax, just re-allocate what is currently collected.

  5. Have to agree with Mal Burgess. The biggest problem is massive family breakdown in these neighborhoods. While there are a lot of similiarities, there is a MASSIVE difference between 46218 and 46219. 46219 is diluted by some stable areas, and that's probably where the officers live. Incentivizing is fine, but don't criticize officers for choosing not to live in these neighbor hoods. They have to have a break from what is arguably one of the highest stress job in the land. And you'll have to give me hard evidence that putting officers there is going to make a significant difference. Solid family units, responsible fathers, siblings with the same fathers, engaged parents, commitment to education, respect for the rule of law and the importance of work/a job. If the families and the schools (and society) will support these, THEN we can make a difference.

ADVERTISEMENT