Check out these words of New York Attorney General (and candidate for governor) Andrew Cuomo:

Our system of local government is broken … New York has more than 10,521 overlapping governments, including counties, towns, villages, school districts, special districts and public authorities. These entities impose layer upon layer of taxing structures — with citizens receiving multiple tax bills annually — resulting in the highest local property tax burden in the nation … To hold government to account the people must have a government they can understand. But what they have today instead at the local level is a ramshackle mess. The current local government system is the product of sheer historical accumulation — not logic, reason or common sense.

Well said. No, make that very well said. The Indiana Chamber and many, many others have put forth a strong case in recent years that township government in our state is beyond repair. Each new revelation of outlandish township reserves, unsightly administrative costs to deliver poor relief and outright criminal behavior further makes the point.

But like most challenges, it’s not just an Indiana problem. The Governing magazine article that featured the Cuomo quote also included the following. Maybe, just maybe, the momentum will grow, lawmakers will step up to the plate and all Hoosiers will benefit.

Rich Pahls, a Nebraska state senator from Omaha, has proposed merging many of his state’s 93 counties. The jurisdictions were designed for the days of the horse and buggy, he pointed out to the New York Times, not an era when “people will drive 100 miles to the grocery store.”

New Jersey, meanwhile, has some of the highest property taxes in the country, thanks in part to its 567 municipalities, a third of them with fewer than 5,000 residents, along with 611 school districts and 486 local authorities. Bergen County alone has 70 school districts and 76 superintendents.

New York State has more than 10,500 governmental entities that levy taxes and fees, and that depend on state largesse for any number of needs. This includes towns, villages and a multiplicity of water, sewer, lighting, school, 911 and other districts. Erie County, which is where Buffalo is located, has over 1,000 such local governing entities alone.

But while political leaders in the U.S. have been talking about local government rationalization, in Denmark, they’ve actually done it.

In 2007, Denmark shrunk the number of municipalities from 271 to 98. County government was completely eliminated. Fully 455,000 local government employees were involved in the restructuring; and 30,000 physically relocated to a new site. The government projects $274 million (1.6 billion DKK) in savings from the restructuring.

The implementation of this massive reform, which began in 2002, offers important lessons as other governments look to achieve big cost savings through rationalizing local government.

Anyone hoping to rationalize the delivery of services from the state level on down must first understand where the opportunities lie to eliminate duplication and inefficiency. Then, you need to lay the groundwork for public acceptance of the change. Both of these goals can be served by gathering hard data on what every unit of government does, how much it spends and what it gets for its money. Only after these goals have been achieved can you make that information readily available to the public.

This is not an easy task. The collection of data alone is enormous. But data gives you the ability to shine a light on what is taking place under the status quo, making the tough task of driving change a little easier.

What does a state audit for Madison Township in Morgan County show? According to a new 6 News report:

• Spending that exceeds the budget by nearly $500,000
• No written contracts for hired services
• Employees being both overpaid and underpaid

This is the latest example of your taxpayer money being wasted. When, we ask again, will this convince legislators that a government system set up in 1851 does not work in the 21st century?

Decide for yourself and let your legislators know you’re sick and tired of reading these stories and their refusal to do something about it. The news story and video are here, along with the state audit report.

Reforms come in various shapes and sizes. For example:

• Health care reform dominated the headlines in 2009 and early this year. No one is quite sure what we ended up with, although many in business are convinced it’s going to cost a lot of money and more and more John/Jane Q. Publics are not happy with what they’re learning about the government intrusion into their medical doings.
• Local government reform in Indiana has stalled the last few years because a:) some Hoosiers like the way the system was set up in 1851; b:) politics is taking precedence over policy (imagine that!); c:) the people who prefer the status quo have spoken louder, or at least more effectively, than the proponents for change; or d:) some combination of all of the above.

Today. however, we’re talking education reform and it’s an area in which the overall results are sometimes mixed. (But then almost any reform is an improvement over a status quo that fails far too many young people). But the focus is spending more time on task; in Massachusetts, the official name is a rather straightforward Expanded Learning Time. And ELT is working.

The U.S. trails most other industrialized nations in school days. So Massachusetts has added 300 hours per year in select schools. Included among the results:

• ELT schools gaining in test results at double the state average in English language arts and math; and at five times the state average in science
• Broadened opportunities for students, including enrichment programming in a variety of subjects
• Increased student demand. One Boston middle school went from underenrolled to a waiting list in three years
• Higher teacher satisfaction
• Stronger community partnerships

No, you can’t just keep the doors open longer. No one said it is easy. But it does seem to be one of the more common sense reforms that could yield positive results for students of all abilities. Yet, in the Indiana General Assembly, time is spent each session fighting off legislation that would actually shorten the school year.

Maybe it’s no coincidence that Indiana’s local government structure and school day calendar (to meet the needs of students who had to help out on the family farm) were set up around the same time. Both are in need of a serious update. We’ve got to start somewhere — for schools, that might be with more, not less, learning opportunities.

Read Massachusetts’ More Time for Learning: Promising Practices and Lessons Learned.

When the South Bend Tribune headline reads, "St. Joseph County assessor not seen in office for weeks," one can be fairly confident it’s going to be an interesting story. I wasn’t disappointed.

Although the recent focus has been on townships and how their usefulness has long since gone away in most cases, the original local government efficiency recommendations from the Kernan-Shepard Commission also noted that county officials (like the assessor) should be appointed rather than elected. Wouldn’t that come in handy in this case?

Here’s a brief excerpt below and a link to the full story.

St. Joseph County Assessor David Wesolowski, defeated in his Democratic primary bid this spring for a seventh term, has not been at work since at least mid-April.

Wesolowski confirms that he’s been out of the office for several weeks but says he’s been taking some deserved time off.

"He’s been in hiding," said Dennis Dillman, a member of the Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals, which operates out of the same office as Wesolowski on the third floor of the County-City Building.

Reached by cell phone Friday, Wesolowski explained that he took time off in April to campaign and that he has been on vacation since "for health purposes and everything else, too."

"I’m entitled to that," he said, adding that he has kept in touch with the office by both phone and e-mail and even visited there Wednesday afternoon.

As an elected official, Wesolowski is not required by state law to work a certain number of hours or to report the hours that he does work. He receives no set number of vacation days, personal days or sick days. 

Thanks to a story by WRTV 6 News in Indianapolis, we now know why townships don’t always file their state-required reports on time — or at all in some cases. It’s because "the dog ate my homework" or "we can’t do that because we don’t know how to use a computer."

Elementary school teachers have heard the former for years, while the latter is no longer applicable as that computer and Internet thing appears to be here to say. Sure, I gave my own interpretations to township officials’ comments when questioned about their reports, but read for yourself and see if you don’t come away with the same impression.

It’s not just an Indianapolis problem, of course. It’s more than 1,000 trustees statewide and 3,000-4,000 advisory board members taking part in a form of government that features ineffectiveness, inefficiency, nepotism, fraud and the like. Just a few of those recent stories can be found here, here, here and here.

While the effort to find a better way to serve citizens and save taxpayer money continues, the results have unfortunately become a farce. The township system DOES NOT WORK, and maybe even worse, lawmakers won’t do anything about it. Those in office and those running for election this fall: When will you fix this mess?

Eric Bradner of the Evansville Courier & Press continues his fine work in outlining the shortcomings of township government. See his latest entry here, with more expected in coming weeks.

The topic (late or not filed at all state-required financial reports) is now new; the reports for fiscal year 2009 (due in the first few months of this year) are missing in action for many. In addition to the story details, even more township trustees (nearly 400 of them) have filed to file an annual salary report. Who knows what interesting numbers are in hiding.

Here’s a brief section of Bradner’s story. It leaves one thinking — once again — why these townships continue to exist.

(In Warrick County), Lane Township Trustee Linda Orth … said she never knew she was supposed to file an annual financial report with the state and was unaware of the switch to an electronic format.

"I am still learning what I am supposed to do and not do," she said. "They change these rules quite regularly, and there is no official training."

Orth was appointed to the position in 2006 because her predecessor quit. She kept the job after that year’s election because no one ran for trustee. She later tried to resign, but said county officials told her she should wait until a replacement was trained. No one was interested.

As I made my way to the polls (a lovely golf course that had more people on the driving range at that early hour than doing their part for democracy) just after 7 a.m. today, I couldn’t help but wonder why vote centers haven’t been given more of a chance. Yes, a few Indiana counties were allowed to experiment in recent years and the results were positive, but legislative attempts to expand the concept have not gained traction.

Instead of numerous golf courses, schools, churches, fire stations and other polling places throughout a county, voting would take place at fewer but more centralized locations (think closer to work and play). More flexibility for the voters (I would not have made it back to the scenic golf course by 6 p.m. if I had not been able to make it there before work) and signficant financial benefits for counties (less machines, fewer poll workers and undoubtedly a reduction in problems that inevitably occur at far-flung precincts where the number of voters in 12 hours barely equals the age of one of the poll workers; OK, a cheap shot, but thank goodness for those willing to work the polls election after election after election).

Vote centers are one of those ideas that simply makes sense. Kind of like township reform. With both, you would do away with an antiquated system, save money (lots of money in many cases) and more effectively serve citizens.

Established political forces don’t want local government to change, no matter the cost to taxpayers. Is it the same with vote centers? If so, why? Help me, help all of us understand.