Originally viewed in the Indianapolis Star
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071212/LOCAL/312120012
Below is one of the few comments that really had merit. It would need some tweaking, but we still retain local control, but there are fewer taxing authorities rather than multiple taxing authorities. Biggest difference for us would be fighting for budget dollars and one entity fighting and plotting against another entity for those tax dollars
Comment # 84 wrote (http://www.topix.net/forum/source/indianapolis-star/TAP10LBS7DJ48A8PH/p5) : I've posted about this here before. I grew up in Virginia, where the local government system is similar to what is proposed here. Everything below state government is either the county or an incorporated city. Urban counties have an elected county supervisor with an elected board of commissioners. Other counties have a board of supervisors that serve both legislative and executive functions. But all schools, library, parks, transportation, assessment, and other functions come under the ultimate budgetary and TAXING authority of the county-level goverment. It makes it much easier to participate in your local government, because you hold those few county supervisors responsible for all of it.(There are also elected school boards, but they are responsible for planning, curriculum, etc., only - their budgets and any necessary tax increases are subject to the approval of the county supervisors). Cities work basically the same way, but they are considered separate entities from the counties. There are also towns, but their budgets and taxing authority lie with the county.
So there are very few taxing authorities in Virginia. That's what Indiana needs - consolidation of taxing authorities. You can go ahead and elect whomever you want - school boards, assessors, clerks, library boards, etc.- but consolidate the taxing at one level in each city or county. Then we know exactly who to praise or blame for the level of taxes we pay to the county. And when one person or council is responsible, they'll make darn sure your taxes don't go up too much, whether it's for schools, libraries, roundabouts, whatever.
Long story short, Virginia has been consistently named one of the best state economies and has one of the lowest overall tax burdens in the nation. Indiana has not been. We need to LOOK AROUND at Virginia and other state examples of how to run a lean, efficient system of state and local government.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
From Phil Baugher at the Westchester Public Library
**Note: Mr. Baugher's "Talking Points" appear at the end of this post.
Greetings again,
It’s been a while since I’ve written concerning library consolidation, but now that the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform report has been released I’d thought I’d share some thoughts and talking points I threw together. Please feel free to use the document any way you may see fit, adding, correcting, or deleting anything you may like.
Please contact me directly if you want me to resend anything I’ve previously sent.
My trustees and I have a meeting scheduled with 3 of our 4 legislators this evening to talk with them about the report, and I encourage you to reach out to your local representatives too.
As I wrote in an earlier message, please feel free to use this mailing list to communicate with your colleagues by posting a message in a reply to all. You can strip out the content of any of my messages, sending a communication to the group and share your observations, and/or any other documents you might believe might be of use to our public library community in this campaign to preserve the independence of our libraries.
Please remember to visit Steve Boggs’ blog at http://sospl.blogspot.com/ for additional resources related to the topic.
We’re all in this together.
Phil
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
— John F. KENNEDY
Phil Baugher, Director
phone - 1-219-926-7696
December 12, 2007
Talking Points and Responses to
“Streamlining Local Government”
Some General Observations
The report, “Streamlining Local Government” speculates about how local government might be altered to reduce property taxes for taxpayers. Unfortunately, the recommendations appear to be based largely on a variety of unsubstantiated assumptions and leaps in logic. The report lacks concrete examples and data calculations of how much might be saved for each recommendation. The recommendations also do not address the negative impact the recommendations might have on the delivery of local government services if enacted.
The web site for the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform contains extensive summarized comments received from the public through the commission’s web site, e-mail address or by regular mail. The comments are overwhelmingly opposed to the consolidation of libraries. Unfortunately, the report fails to acknowledge these comments and cherry picks only the comments supporting their recommendations to be included in the text of the report.
Recommendation #18 - Reorganize library systems by county and provide permanent library service for all citizens.
The report acknowledges the high ranking of
Small libraries obviously contribute greatly to the overall high ranking.
Consolidation and addressing areas not served by a public library are two separate issues.
Bigger is not necessarily better especially if library facilities are centralized and are not conveniently located in the communities served.
There are already legal mechanisms in place that would allow libraries to merge together and form larger library districts if desired by their library boards. Permissive legislation might be considered that would allow residents to merge library districts through a referendum without relying on library boards to approve the issue.
Larger libraries tend to incur more debt through bonding and building.
The remodeled and expanded central library of the Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library was 2 years overdue, cost over $103 million, was $50 million over budget, and a library trustee plead guilty of a felony related to the building project. Larger libraries have a greater concentration of resources that could be lost through theft, mismanagement, or the simple fiscal or operational ineptitude of library officials.
The issue of un-served areas can only be resolved by mandating all citizens be taxed for library service and by allowing townships to either create their own library district, contract for service with an existing district for a negotiated price, or to merge permanently with an existing district would allow a township to chose the best and most economical option for their citizens.
Forcing un-served areas into the larger libraries would be more expensive and in some cases, citizens would be responsible for paying off the old debt incurred by the larger unit.
Consolidation would not guarantee that existing library buildings in merged units would continue to be operated, or that the un-served areas would receive library building of their own in return for the new taxes they would be required to pay. Larger units tend to build and operate larger buildings.
Consolidation of libraries would reduce the number of library trustees who are available throughout the state to respond to the concerns of their citizens, reducing accountability. Fewer trustees would also reduce public oversight of libraries and could lead to increased corruption and mismanagement.
Library trustees are volunteers and are not paid for their service.
Most library directors serving in small libraries are not full-time administrators, serving more as professional librarians than as bureaucrats.
Consolidation would reduce the number of library directors in the state, but the library buildings they operate would still need professional supervision and guidance.
New, proposed certification standards for library employees recently proposed by the Indiana State Library require public libraries to employ many more trained professional librarians throughout the state, not fewer.
Merging the various automated systems in libraries in the state would take a long time and cost millions of dollars.
The general public appears to be very satisfied with the quality of their library service, and is not clamoring for radical change.
Recommendation #19 – Require that the budgets and bonds of library and all other special districts be approved by the fiscal body of the municipal or county government containing the greatest proportion of assessed value in the unit seeking approval.
Libraries only account for 3.33% of total property tax expenditures.
Public library property tax collections are limited by the same state regulations and annual multipliers as other local units of government.
Public libraries and other local units of government are not responsible for the recent and dramatic increases in property taxes due to the elimination of the inventory tax and changes in the method of property assessment. Public libraries should not be singled out for blame. Any new property tax controls should be applied equitably among all units of government to insure no one area of service suffers dramatically.
Public libraries are usually very conservative and if their recent expenditures have been high in comparison with other local units of government, it has been because public libraries have been required to provide their public with many new technologies. If we want our citizens to continue to be competitive in the modern world, we should consider how we can improve the information services provided by our public libraries, not how these services can be reduced.
A recent study of
Recent, new regulations already require that bond issues in excess of $7 million be approved by the county board of tax and capital review. A referendum might also be considered to determine the success or failure of a bond issue. Let the voters decide.
This proposal could disenfranchise all of the citizens who don’t reside in the municipal or county unit not having the greatest proportion of assessed valuation.
The proposal would give a body the authority to reduce the budget of another local unit of government without having any real responsibility for providing the public service of the second unit. This would greatly reduce accountability to the public.
The existing and proposed “circuit breaker” legislation limits the total amount of taxes that can be collected in a county. If the larger fiscal body in the county found its property tax collections being limited by the circuit breaker ceiling, it would very likely slash the library’s budget or could even conceivably close the public library to reduce their loss. Again, property tax controls should be applied equitably among all units of government.
If the issue is really one objecting to appointed boards having the ability to levy taxes, then the obvious solution is to change the law and require public library boards be elected and to not jeopardize the public libraries they serve.
The general public appears to be very satisfied with the cost of library service, and is not clamoring for radical change.
Miscellaneous Points
Public libraries operate very efficiently and cooperatively. Many libraries already participate in a variety of cooperative purchasing programs. Some libraries share automated systems and are working towards establishing shared bibliographic catalogs. Libraries also participate in interlibrary loan programs, arranging for the loan of and borrowing of materials between libraries on behalf of their patrons upon request. There are also a variety of reciprocal borrowing agreements throughout the state that allow library patrons to travel to a neighboring library district to borrow materials directly.
Initial post of information from the Indiana Library Federation
FROM: John V. Barnett, Jr.
Hopefully by now you have had an opportunity to thoughtfully consider Recommendations 18, 19 and 20 in the Shepard-Kernan Commission report released Tuesday, December 11. The website is: http://indianalocalgovreform.iu.edu/.
Clearly, every library district would be impacted if these recommendations were to be implemented. You are urged to immediately communicate your thoughts to the legislators that represent your district as well as local media outlets. Key point – “The devil is in the details.” If the details of implementing these recommendations have been discussed, none have been disclosed. Implementing Recommendation 18 will be very complicated since, as the Commission itself has acknowledged, “one size does not fit all”. Much more serious thought must be given to each of these recommendations. And, that can’t possibly happen between now and January 8 when the legislature reconvenes. If you have more specific thoughts or concerns about the impact locally, mention them.
Library directors, trustees, and appointing authorities should be involved in this effort.
Your immediate attention to this request is very important.
Thanks for your follow-through.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
From South Bend Tribune...SB comments in Bold/Italic
From: http://southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071213/News01/712130318/1130/Sports01
Kernan offers insights on reform reportFormer governor tells what went into effort, what he hopes it accomplishes.
JAMES WENSITS
Tribune Political Writer
SOUTH BEND -- The Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform report on streamlining local government came with a message just short of a warning:
"We've got to stop governing like this," it said.
Former Indiana Gov. Joe Kernan, who co-chaired the commission, met with the Tribune's editorial board Wednesday in an effort to explain what went into the nearly six-months-long commission effort and what he hopes the state will get out of it.
In all, the commission made 27 recommendations for streamlining local government, each of which was unanimously approved by Kernan, Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard, who was the other co-chair, and the remaining five commission members.
The findings were not intended as a criticism of local government officials, Kernan said, but rather as an indictment of a structure that is more than 150 years old and which "doesn't make sense" today.
One of the commission recommendations would create a single-person elected county chief executive who would become responsible for administering the duties of what are now elected officials, such as the county auditor, treasurer, sheriff, assessor, recorder, surveyor and coroner.
Another would do away with township-level government by transferring those responsibilities, which include assessment, fire protection and poor relief, to the county executive.
What follows are excerpts from that conversation, abridged for the sake of brevity. The full text will be made available on The Tribune's Web site.
Q. If you do away with township government, how would persons in rural areas receive poor relief?
A. Doing away with township government does not mean that we would necessarily do away with convenient locations for some services to be delivered. We are not telling communities that the delivery of those services has to be centralized.
We recommend the reorganization of libraries on a countywide basis. We don't say and do not recommend that local libraries be closed. We've got Madison Township that has no library service at all. There are 400,000 people in Indiana that don't have any service. We are certainly not recommending that we close libraries. Nor are we recommending closing schools.
Q. Would there be one library system for St. Joseph County that would combine the Mishawaka-Penn-Harris, St. Joseph County, New Carlisle-Olive Township and Walkerton public libraries?
A. That's what we propose.
Q. Would it be under the St. Joseph County Library System?
A. It would be a countywide system. The local community would make the decision as to what that looked like and what it was called ... With four different administrations for the four different libraries, there has to be some economies of scale in having one administration and delivering those services countywide.
Even Don Napoli at SJCPL noted that there probably wouldn't be much if any cost savings in consolidating libraries (South Bend Tribune article12/1/07 "Smaller Libraries Worried.") What we need is to have all Townships in the state to be fully served by a library or library district.
Q. One of the most striking aspects of the commission's report is the amount of power and responsibility that is placed in the hands of the county executive for functions that are now the responsibility of many different people in county government. Is there any thought that might be too much responsibility to concentrate in one individual?
A. If you look at the responsibilities that the mayors of South Bend and Mishawaka have, I would argue that it's not that much different in terms of responsibility. ... It makes sense to have one executive that is responsible for the administration of all of those offices, with qualified staff.
Q. Do you think there could be a reduction in the county work force?
A. I would anticipate that you will be able to do things more efficiently, which will probably mean less people. It certainly will mean less elected officials.
Q. What do you think can realistically be accomplished in the General Assembly, given the resistance to some aspects of this?
A. You won't have any trouble finding people who are opposed to any or all of the things that we have proposed. There are a lot of people who have a vested interest in the status quo. ... We make these recommendations with the idea that they all be implemented. Will that happen? Probably not.
Q. With the amount of power the county executive will have in appointing individuals to the various offices, it could be construed as a return to the political patronage system, with all the possibilities for corruption that that implies. How do you keep that from happening?
A. I would venture to say that I am not aware of any evidence that having officials appointed makes any difference one way or the other, from a corruption standpoint, than having officials elected. What I do know is that it would be very clear as to whose responsibility it was.
HELLO!!! EARTH CALLING!!! IT'S CALLED A POLITICAL MACHINE.
... If there are tendencies in that direction, it will not be long before the community figures it out, elected or appointed.
Staff writer James Wensits:
jwensits@sbtinfo.com
(574) 235-6353
A County Czar?
Makes me cringe. I'd rather a seven member elected County Board with a County Manager.
Related story at wsbt.com: http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/12446856.html
Related story at wsbt.com: http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/12446856.html
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Good points from the Chesterton Tribune
A point here is the lack of library service throughout the state and more than 300,000 are living in areas not served by libraries. This point desperately needs to be addressed.
Link: http://chestertontribune.com/Library/121210%20reform_report_takes_aim_at_state.htm
Text: Reform report takes aim at state's 'excellent' library system
By VICKI URBANIK
In its report for reforming local government, a state commission applauds the work of public libraries, saying that whether large or small, Indiana libraries provide “excellent” service.
The Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform’s report notes that Indiana libraries ranked second overall in the National Center for Education Statistics’ national benchmarks on services, collection, revenue and expenditures.
With such a record, one may think that Indiana’s library system isn’t broken and doesn’t need fixing. But the commission thinks otherwise, recommending that Indiana’s 239 library districts consolidate into 92 single county districts or even multi-county districts.
If carried out, the recommendation would bring an end to the Westchester Public Library system, which would be melded in with the county library system and controlled largely by the county council and a new county executive.
The commission’s report said the library consolidation would help expand library services to all areas of the state. Its report states: “Indiana has too many library districts and administrators, but Indiana does not have too many libraries. We recommend maintaining the current mix of geographically dispersed facilities to allow districts to serve local populations and needs.”
But would consolidation of libraries guarantee library services for, say, residents of Adams or Clay counties, two counties with limited library service?
Ironically, no, said Westchester Public Library Director Phil Baugher.
“They would be taxed for a library,” he said of the residents in the new countywide library system. But in order to be guaranteed library services, he said, lawmakers “would have to mandate library services.”
Baugher said he’s disturbed that the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform tied the issue of library consolidation with the goal of expanding library services to unserved areas. He said he and other WPL supporters believe that the two issues are separate.
If, Baugher said, the true goal is to expand library services, the state could require, or encourage, communities to contract with the larger library systems in their area, or use a township by township approach and have township trustees negotiate with a library provider.
“Why not address the unserved areas?” he said.
The report states that an estimated 395,000 Indiana residents in 38 counties do not have access to library services, and that 29 counties have areas that are “underserved” by contractual library services. The report also states that Indiana libraries employ almost twice as many staff per 10,000 people than the national average.
“By reducing the number of (library) districts, we can address current unserved and underserved areas and achieve additional economies of scale within administrative and purchasing expenditures,” the report states.
The recommendation for consolidating small library systems like WPL comes despite ample public support for smaller libraries, judging by all the comments posted on the commission’s webpage in support of keeping local library systems.
“I think that’s pretty obvious that they ignored the public’s comments,” Baugher said, speculating if the report was predetermined even before the public input was received. “To me, it shows they weren’t responsive to public.”
The report overall focuses largely on consolidation of government services. But Baugher said bigger isn’t always better and often can be more expensive.
He cited as one example the new $100 million Marion County public library that came in $50 million over budget.
In addition to consolidation of libraries, the report recommends that the taxing unit with the largest assessed value would be given the authority to approve the library system’s budget and bond issues. That could mean that this responsibility would fall to the Porter County Council; the report also calls for having a new county executive -- an elected post that would replace the three county commissioners --- oversee the new consolidated library.
Baugher said that with the move toward capping property taxes, “it’s very easy to predict what would happen.”
If the county government was in danger of hitting its property tax cap, it could offset that budget loss by cutting the library budget.
“It could be devastating to the libraries,” he said.
WPL supporters have waged a visible campaign aimed at drumming up public support for keeping WPL a local library system independent of the Porter County library system. Baugher said WPL will continue to make its position known to state legislators.
He said he finds it disturbing that local government, including libraries, seem to be getting blamed for property tax problems over which they have no control. He said local government has been forced to spend millions of dollars in interest due to the lack of property tax revenues, even though they had nothing to do with the late tax bills.
Baugher said he fears what might happen in the upcoming session of the Indiana Legislature, since state legislators are under so much pressure to pass tax reform legislation and that they might “look at libraries as scapegoats.”
Posted 12/12/2007
Link: http://chestertontribune.com/Library/121210%20reform_report_takes_aim_at_state.htm
Text: Reform report takes aim at state's 'excellent' library system
By VICKI URBANIK
In its report for reforming local government, a state commission applauds the work of public libraries, saying that whether large or small, Indiana libraries provide “excellent” service.
The Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform’s report notes that Indiana libraries ranked second overall in the National Center for Education Statistics’ national benchmarks on services, collection, revenue and expenditures.
With such a record, one may think that Indiana’s library system isn’t broken and doesn’t need fixing. But the commission thinks otherwise, recommending that Indiana’s 239 library districts consolidate into 92 single county districts or even multi-county districts.
If carried out, the recommendation would bring an end to the Westchester Public Library system, which would be melded in with the county library system and controlled largely by the county council and a new county executive.
The commission’s report said the library consolidation would help expand library services to all areas of the state. Its report states: “Indiana has too many library districts and administrators, but Indiana does not have too many libraries. We recommend maintaining the current mix of geographically dispersed facilities to allow districts to serve local populations and needs.”
But would consolidation of libraries guarantee library services for, say, residents of Adams or Clay counties, two counties with limited library service?
Ironically, no, said Westchester Public Library Director Phil Baugher.
“They would be taxed for a library,” he said of the residents in the new countywide library system. But in order to be guaranteed library services, he said, lawmakers “would have to mandate library services.”
Baugher said he’s disturbed that the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform tied the issue of library consolidation with the goal of expanding library services to unserved areas. He said he and other WPL supporters believe that the two issues are separate.
If, Baugher said, the true goal is to expand library services, the state could require, or encourage, communities to contract with the larger library systems in their area, or use a township by township approach and have township trustees negotiate with a library provider.
“Why not address the unserved areas?” he said.
The report states that an estimated 395,000 Indiana residents in 38 counties do not have access to library services, and that 29 counties have areas that are “underserved” by contractual library services. The report also states that Indiana libraries employ almost twice as many staff per 10,000 people than the national average.
“By reducing the number of (library) districts, we can address current unserved and underserved areas and achieve additional economies of scale within administrative and purchasing expenditures,” the report states.
The recommendation for consolidating small library systems like WPL comes despite ample public support for smaller libraries, judging by all the comments posted on the commission’s webpage in support of keeping local library systems.
“I think that’s pretty obvious that they ignored the public’s comments,” Baugher said, speculating if the report was predetermined even before the public input was received. “To me, it shows they weren’t responsive to public.”
The report overall focuses largely on consolidation of government services. But Baugher said bigger isn’t always better and often can be more expensive.
He cited as one example the new $100 million Marion County public library that came in $50 million over budget.
In addition to consolidation of libraries, the report recommends that the taxing unit with the largest assessed value would be given the authority to approve the library system’s budget and bond issues. That could mean that this responsibility would fall to the Porter County Council; the report also calls for having a new county executive -- an elected post that would replace the three county commissioners --- oversee the new consolidated library.
Baugher said that with the move toward capping property taxes, “it’s very easy to predict what would happen.”
If the county government was in danger of hitting its property tax cap, it could offset that budget loss by cutting the library budget.
“It could be devastating to the libraries,” he said.
WPL supporters have waged a visible campaign aimed at drumming up public support for keeping WPL a local library system independent of the Porter County library system. Baugher said WPL will continue to make its position known to state legislators.
He said he finds it disturbing that local government, including libraries, seem to be getting blamed for property tax problems over which they have no control. He said local government has been forced to spend millions of dollars in interest due to the lack of property tax revenues, even though they had nothing to do with the late tax bills.
Baugher said he fears what might happen in the upcoming session of the Indiana Legislature, since state legislators are under so much pressure to pass tax reform legislation and that they might “look at libraries as scapegoats.”
Posted 12/12/2007
A comment from the Indianapolis Star that may have merit for further study
From the Indianapolis Star: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071212/LOCAL/312120012
Below is one of the few comments that really had merit (I am unsure as to why the link points toward topix.net). It would need some tweaking, but we still retain local control, but there are fewer taxing authorities rather than multiple taxing authorities.
The author of this blog certainly encourages ideas.
Comment # 84 wrote (http://www.topix.net/forum/source/indianapolis-star/TAP10LBS7DJ48A8PH/p5) : I've posted about this here before. I grew up in Virginia, where the local government system is similar to what is proposed here. Everything below state government is either the county or an incorporated city. Urban counties have an elected county supervisor with an elected board of commissioners. Other counties have a board of supervisors that serve both legislative and executive functions. But all schools, library, parks, transportation, assessment, and other functions come under the ultimate budgetary and TAXING authority of the county-level goverment. It makes it much easier to participate in your local government, because you hold those few county supervisors responsible for all of it.(There are also elected school boards, but they are responsible for planning, curriculum, etc., only - their budgets and any necessary tax increases are subject to the approval of the county supervisors). Cities work basically the same way, but they are considered separate entities from the counties. There are also towns, but their budgets and taxing authority lie with the county.
So there are very few taxing authorities in Virginia. That's what Indiana needs - consolidation of taxing authorities. You can go ahead and elect whomever you want - school boards, assessors, clerks, library boards, etc.- but consolidate the taxing at one level in each city or county. Then we know exactly who to praise or blame for the level of taxes we pay to the county. And when one person or council is responsible, they'll make darn sure your taxes don't go up too much, whether it's for schools, libraries, roundabouts, whatever.
Long story short, Virginia has been consistently named one of the best state economies and has one of the lowest overall tax burdens in the nation. Indiana has not been. We need to LOOK AROUND at Virginia and other state examples of how to run a lean, efficient system of state and local government.
Below is one of the few comments that really had merit (I am unsure as to why the link points toward topix.net). It would need some tweaking, but we still retain local control, but there are fewer taxing authorities rather than multiple taxing authorities.
The author of this blog certainly encourages ideas.
Comment # 84 wrote (http://www.topix.net/forum/source/indianapolis-star/TAP10LBS7DJ48A8PH/p5) : I've posted about this here before. I grew up in Virginia, where the local government system is similar to what is proposed here. Everything below state government is either the county or an incorporated city. Urban counties have an elected county supervisor with an elected board of commissioners. Other counties have a board of supervisors that serve both legislative and executive functions. But all schools, library, parks, transportation, assessment, and other functions come under the ultimate budgetary and TAXING authority of the county-level goverment. It makes it much easier to participate in your local government, because you hold those few county supervisors responsible for all of it.(There are also elected school boards, but they are responsible for planning, curriculum, etc., only - their budgets and any necessary tax increases are subject to the approval of the county supervisors). Cities work basically the same way, but they are considered separate entities from the counties. There are also towns, but their budgets and taxing authority lie with the county.
So there are very few taxing authorities in Virginia. That's what Indiana needs - consolidation of taxing authorities. You can go ahead and elect whomever you want - school boards, assessors, clerks, library boards, etc.- but consolidate the taxing at one level in each city or county. Then we know exactly who to praise or blame for the level of taxes we pay to the county. And when one person or council is responsible, they'll make darn sure your taxes don't go up too much, whether it's for schools, libraries, roundabouts, whatever.
Long story short, Virginia has been consistently named one of the best state economies and has one of the lowest overall tax burdens in the nation. Indiana has not been. We need to LOOK AROUND at Virginia and other state examples of how to run a lean, efficient system of state and local government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)