Editor,
At the last Town Council meeting, I questioned Mr. Papa’s authority to take official action for the Town of Zionsville unilaterally by himself. However, my issue was obfuscated by bringing up an Open Door complaint. While I did not file the attached Open Door complaint, I think the Indiana Access Councilor’s subsequent opinion was correct. The complaint required a legal opinion that was outside of the scope of the Open Door Law. However, the complaint had real merit concerning how things are being done in Zionsville.
What authority in Indiana Code 36 does a town president have – unilateral decision making to take official actions, or administrative oversight to follow through on town government’s initiatives and decisions? Probably this question will not be clarified outside of a legal challenge in court. But why wouldn’t a local government want to do its business through an open process where votes are taken by each member of the governing body on official actions?
Mr. Papa and I have gone around and around on the subject of whether he as the Town President has executive authority to take official action by himself. I argue the IC 36 statute on Local Government does not convey unilateral authority to a town president as the town’s executive. IC 36 conveys administrative authority to do exactly what Zionsville’s twice amended 2010 Town Council protocols state. As the town president,
Mr. Papa has administrative authority to follow through on directives, ordinances and resolutions that have been approved through a public vote by the Town Council. The president also has public relation responsibilities on behalf of the Town.
There is no recording of a Town Council vote on the referendum appeal. Mr. Papa unilaterally appealed the trial court’s ruling. The rush to appeal is representative of the whole referendum/mayor debacle. To date, it has not prevailed legally with the trial court or the cours on the request for expedited appeal status. The DLGF sent its required report to Zionsville before the voting began. It stated the referendum was not legal. It was not a favorable tax impact review. In lieu of such negative events, what chance does an appeal have and how much will it cost? The public had a right to know how each councilor would vote on the appeal.
Barnes and Thornburg LLC, representing Zionsville in rebuttal argument to the public access complaint, stated that the Town’s 2010 protocols are not binding on successive government officials. First, officially Zionsville has not rescinded them. Second, IC 36 on Local Government clearly states that official actions must be made by vote in public by the members of a local government.
The recording of the April 2014 Town Council meeting makes clear that Councilor Schuler was taken by surprise concerning the Perry, Zionsville, Mayor presentation by Mr. Papa. Before April, in February
Mr. Papa went to the Zionsville Community School and the Hussey Mayfield Library Board to try to get them on board with his plan. Subsequently,
Mr. Schuler, who in April was unaware of Mr. Papa’s actions and plan, voted against the referendum.
Read the role of mayor as described in the embattled referendum. It is exactly what Mr. Papa has already been doing. If he can act unilaterally now, why do we need a mayor, or for that matter town councilors? The referendum eliminates the Clerk/Treasurer’s independent elective watchdog role in town government. That is not a wise. Trust and accuracy are built upon independent checks and balances.
President Obama has by-passed the congressional process with his unilateral executive orders. Executive orders cause all kinds of division and legal challenges. Why should Zionsville tolerate unilateral executive actions here? I hope we the people will experience more involved public oversight from the individual town councilors in the future.
Wendy Brant
Zionsville