What a second term is for

Bart Peterson’s successful reelection campaign for mayor last year came as no surprise. Although Peterson was the first Democrat to hold the mayor’s office since the mid 1960s, he managed to win the confidence of powerful forces in both parties. He also enjoyed a remarkable level of popular support, reflected by high approval ratings. The question wasn’t whether or not Peterson could win. The question was what he was going to do with all the political capital he had managed to accumulate.

Last week we found out.

In proposing to consolidate our local government, Peterson has shown a readiness to take on a political challenge that not even Richard Lugar was willing to face when he introduced the inaccurately named Unigov concept back in 1969. In those days, of course, what Lugar, who was then mayor, did, was considered a big enough gulp in and of itself. Lugar had the vision, or the temerity, to understand that the city and the county surrounding it needed to be one governmental unit. He used an extraordinary alignment of political stars — a Republican sweep that took control of city and county offices, the state legislature and the governor in the 1968 elections — to make this concept a reality.

But if the name, “Unigov,” had a certain Tomorrow Land ring, the thing itself remained stubbornly old-fashioned. That’s because Lugar found that in order to sell his concept he was going to have to let things stay pretty much they way they had always been.

So all the nine townships in Marion County would retain their trustees and their fire departments. There would be a county police department — the Sheriff’s Department — and a city police department, IPD. Same with the budget. The county would have one budget and the city would have one, too. And as far as setting up a single, unified public schools system, forget about it.

Bart Peterson deserves credit for trying to impose a measure of rationality on this bureaucratic swamp. A city budget crisis that Peterson says could result in massive tax increases and layoffs may have inspired this initiative: So be it. The mayor should still be congratulated for his willingness to propose the right thing in the face of kicking and screaming political opposition.

Peterson wants a consolidated, county-wide police force under the authority of the County Sheriff. He wants a single fire department, with centralized hiring, training and purchasing authority. Peterson proposes reducing our nine townships to two — what is now Center and then another, essentially suburban, township accounting for the rest of the county. This would leave a single, elected, county property tax assessor, which could make for more consistent assessments throughout the county.

Finally, Peterson wants city and county budget control centered in the mayor’s office. County politicians that few of us can even name will say that this is a power grab by the mayor. But consolidating these budgets is actually about greater accountability. Yes, the mayor will have greater power, but he or she will also be on the spot. All of us know who the mayor is. We can vote up or down if we don’t like the way things are handled. County budget makers, by contrast, are relatively anonymous. They can screw things up and only insiders know about it — which means the mayor often takes the blame. No wonder Peterson wants greater control of this process.

Let’s face it: What Peterson wants should only be considered the beginning of what needs to be done around here. As sensible as this proposal is, it still fails to address two of the largest sources of inequity and inefficiency in our community, public education and mass transit. These potatoes were too hot to handle back in Richard Lugar’s day and they are still untouchable. If, however, Peterson’s proposal succeeds, systemic solutions to even these seemingly intractable problems might become thinkable.

So far, coverage of Peterson’s proposal has focused mainly on the economic impact being projected. Without these consolidations, Indianapolis will be facing hundreds of millions of dollars in budget-busting police and fire pension payouts in coming years. On the other hand, the Peterson administration projects that consolidation could actually save the city $35 million — a figure that some fiscal experts dispute.

What the numbers miss is what this plan could mean in terms of Indianapolis’ identity. Instead of creating a unified, metropolitan community, Unigov perpetuated a kind of suburban Balkanization around what we imprecisely call Downtown. This situation, replete with overlapping and redundant services and taxing authorities, has encouraged a local love-hate attitude toward urbanism and made it hard for Indianapolis to come into its own as a city. Peterson’s proposal is a common sense way of getting us to understand that we share this place. It’s a way of harnessing our collective energies to find solutions to what are really common problems.

Making this consolidation happen won’t be easy. Peterson will need all the support he can get to persuade not just members of the City County Council, but the state legislature to go along. There’s liable to be a fight. But in taking that on, Peterson is showing us he understands the difference between merely managing the city and leading it — and that a leader is what he wants to be.