Politics & Public Safety
I learned a long time ago from a very wise man that the only problem with playing games in politics is sometimes you come across people who can play better than you. I strongly suggest the Indianapolis City-County Council keep that in mind as it navigates the waters of Public Safety Director Frank Straub’s “confirmation” hearings.
It goes without saying that Dr. Straub has been a lightning rod for change and criticism from Democrats and Republicans for recent events at IMPD. Although I have always and will continue to argue that getting mad at the Public Safety Director for the actions of some rogue law enforcement officers is like getting mad at the exterminator you called to solve your infestation problem.
But let’s say for sake of argument, that the Council refuses to re-appoint Straub, here’s the question, now what? That doesn’t mean Straub can’t stay. Under the code the Mayor can keep Straub in the position until he finds someone else and the Council can’t make him hire anyone. Even Straub critic City-County Councilor Vern Brown admitted that during Straub’s reappointment hearing last year.
So what will they do, cut the funding in the budget? Contrary to popular opinion, Indianapolis has a strong-mayor/weak-council form of government. In other words, the Council can pass a budget, the Mayor can veto it and unless they override it with 20 votes, which as we saw during the smoking ban debate isn’t very likely to happen, nothing would change. Under state law if a municipality fails to pass a budget then the budget from the previous year goes into effect and Straub’s budget would practically stay the same subject to changes by the administration.
And here is something else to keep in mind, what’s to stop the General Assembly, which may be even more Republican next year than it is now to stop from amending the UniGov statute so the Mayor doesn’t have to go the Council to get his appointments confirmed? The Governor doesn’t have to deal with that, so why should the Mayor of Indianapolis have to go back to the Council on an annual basis to get his major appointments approved? It’s one thing to do that once, when that person is appointed, or perhaps re-appointed at the beginning of a second term, but annually? If I were the chief executive officer of the city I wouldn’t put up with that.
And if I know Mayor Greg Ballard as well as I think I do, neither will he. Let the political games begin.
