Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Republicans in Indiana’s Legislature have filed three bills aimed at taking control of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department away from Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett. The most extreme is Senate Bill 168, filed by Sen. Jack Sandlin, which calls for the establishment of a five-member board to oversee IMPD. Four members would be appointed by the governor and one by the mayor.
The efforts by Republican legislators to assert more control over Indianapolis and IMPD stem from the riots and loss of life last summer, as well as the 40% increase in homicides in Indy last year. There were 215 murders in Indy last year—an all-time high. In addition, there is frustration with the newly created General Orders Board that gives civilians control over IMPD policies, a move opposed by the police union.
The growing frustration with the rise of crime and the deterioration of our downtown is understandable. Decades of work have gone into the development and growth of downtown. The combination of the riots and the pandemic have brought downtown to the brink. Add to the mix a lack of leadership out of the City-County Building, and the ground has been laid for the Republican supermajority in the Statehouse to assert itself in the affairs of our capital city.
The irony of this effort is that Republicans typically are in favor of “home rule” policies and laws, which allow a community to tailor its local government to meet local needs. The Republican Party I know wants to narrow government interference in residents’ lives and allow local government to handle issues that are local in nature, such as crime. How is it that the same Republican Party that has filed bills to rein in the governor’s emergency powers (as a result of his pandemic executive orders) now wants to grant the governor authority over policing in Indianapolis?
State control over a local police department is wrong for many reasons. First and foremost, local officials would no longer have accountability for public safety. Today, if Indianapolis residents are unhappy with public safety, they know whom to blame. Public safety lies squarely on the shoulders of Hogsett, who campaigned on being the “public safety mayor” and eliminated the role of public safety director, instead having the IMPD chief report directly to him.
If Sandlin’s bill becomes law, you might see the mayor dancing in the streets, since local policing would become the province of an unaccountable state board.
Kansas City is the only major city in America whose police department is controlled by the state. During Prohibition, corruption and the influence of the mob led the state to enact an oversight board to exert control over public safety. Interestingly, Kansas City officials recently hosted Indianapolis city-county councilors to learn about Indy’s General Orders Board ordinance and are working to repeal the state of Missouri’s oversight over local law enforcement due to accountability concerns.
The attempts by Republican legislators to take public safety out of the hands of the Indianapolis mayor seem to signify their belief that winning elections in Marion County is impossible for Republicans. That belief is a cop-out. If Republicans want to make changes to IMPD and improve our city, they should work to make that happen through the ballot box.
It was only a little over five years ago that Republican Mayor Greg Ballard left city hall. Instead of stripping Hogsett of power, Republicans should work to rebuild the Marion County Republican Party and convince Indianapolis residents that their ideas are better for the city.•
__________
Feltman is CEO of IBJ Media and a shareholder in the company. To comment on this column, send email to nfeltman@ibj.com.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Statehouse overreach or simply partisan vindictiveness, of which there is plenty. Had past GOP administrations done a vastly different job with safety and security protocols and policies and structures to benefit officers and the public in Indianapolis/Marion County, perhaps the perceived crisis would not exist. The GOP loves local control until it does not. And it does not like local control by Democrats and certainly by diverse groups and in diverse areas. The State will next seek direct control over the City-County Council. This misadventure in governance reflects a national trend away from democracy toward a cult-like single-party totalitarian loyalty program.
Is the objective of state oversight actually to limit the rights of citizens to sue and seek justice? Any malfeasance, misdeed, or questionable treatment will now be lost in oversight committee and state limbo. Victims will not have a voice. A Statehouse ill equipped and with proven lack of expertise to deal with basics such as health, eduction, and broad prosperity in a state characterized by higher poverty, low prosperity, poor heath, and under-education. Now, a brilliant plan from the Statehouse for control of the largest and most diverse city in Indiana, and the single largest benefactor to state revenue, from a group of elected officials, the majority of whom have no understanding or large urban problem, harbor bias against diverse groups, and perceive alternative parties the enemy to be defeated. Which state representative has proven expertise and local understanding to rectify and resolve public safety issue in Indianapolis/Marion County? And how would members of the oversight board be selected given that the city where action is need would have minimal representation, meaning Indianapolis citizens would have NO voice or input.
The rights of Indianapolis citizens is being stripped away, bill by bill, statute by statute. This is not democracy, nor is it right. This is a return and unsavory era in Indiana where control was by a select group in a veiled non-transparent system of threat and intimidation masquerading as a fair, rationale, and reasonable democracy. This bill and this trend is anything but.
Can Indianapolis secede from the State of Indiana.
I believe this is legislative trespass. I also believe that if last summer’s riots had been handled to better protect the public, this discussion would not exist. Neither side of this has noble stature.
James B yes and if the indy council hadn’t over reached and taken control of IMPD with 5 member panel who will have no representation from police, or even former police. Then they wouldn’t be under this betterment of law enforcement for Indy.
That’s not even close to accurate. It’s a 7 person board with 4 civilians and 3 police and the police chief is still in charge.
Feltman’s statements that “Republicans typically are in favor of “home rule” policies and laws” and ” The Republican Party I know wants to narrow government” fail to recognize the change in political landscape. Neither party cares about the other’s views. The City/Council democrats created the General Orders board without compromise to the wants of the opposition. The Statehouse Republicans, emboldened by precision gerrymandering giving them a super-majority in both House and Senate, can propose this garbage. And even if the more reasonable Holcomb vetos this, the Legislators only need a simple majority to over-ride.