Lawsuit Against Fishers
Monday, October 11, 2010

I recently joined a tri-partisan lawsuit against the Town of Fishers, regarding the ballot status of the question, "Should Fishers remain a Town, or become a City".

It is my opinion that the City Yes petitioners had followed the law in gaining an adequate number of signatures, and that the law therefore triggers a response by the Town in putting the issue on the ballot as a public question. The Town did not do this, so I joined the suit.

I believe that the form of government is something that the Town's voters should have the final word on. Right now, it appears that the Town Councilors are trying to preserve that for themselves, and to preserve political power.

My interest is in representative government, and good government.

I do disagree with the position that city government would be better, though. Yes, the people should have their say, but in my opinion, and additional layer of government will not provide checks and balances as the City Yes people hope. Certainly, that has not worked out in Carmel or Westfield, where the mayors have championed expensive pet projects, and the city councils have largely acted as rubber stamps. One party rule is one party rule, regardless of how many layers of government you have.

I believe there should be a compromise, as I stated on my September 23 post. Remain a Town, but eliminate the at-large voting, and re-draw the district map in seven concise districts.

But, one thing at a time. A petition was filed. It deserves its' place on the ballot. Once there, we can make the case for remaining a Town, eliminating the at-large vote and redrawing the map.

The tri-partisan nature of the suit speaks to the way the issue cuts across party lines. The people should have their say.

Labels: Fishers, Fishers Town Council, Town of Fishers