> SOUTHERN INDIANA — It’s past time to rein in our local government, particularly the executive branch. The recent toppling of trees at Vissing Park by the city of Jeffersonville without public notice makes the matter urgent for residents, but other cities which find themselves in pools of discontent may want to take note.

We need to protect ourselves from the ambitions of a few that have put our homes, budgets and public lands at the mercy of their visions of remaking what doesn’t belong to them.

We need a law that requires our cities to ask our permission and exacts consequences for failing to do so whether we choose to forgive or not. The consequences should penalize those who act without the support of the people, rather than penalizing the citizens whose wishes were ignored.

We need a law that requires either the city council — the legislative-branch body within the city that represents us and that’s supposed to act as a check and balance to the mayor’s executive-branch power — or the voters to approve all major projects before the city moves forward with significant spending, condemning or acquiring property or significantly altering any public space which we the citizens own in common.

This law must prevent the mayor from using funds he controls to begin a new project that does not have the support of the citizens. Though it makes sense for the city to be able to maintain and manage existing programs and facilities, any new projects, contracts or significant alteration of existing programs or facilities should require approval by the people.

There are two ways that public support of a project might be expressed. One way would be a super-majority vote by the city council. Five members of a seven-person council and at least six members of a nine-person council would have to approve any major city initiative.

The other method is by referendum — that is putting such questions on the ballot for voters to decide. Though this is attractive for the purposes of democracy, there are drawbacks. Elections are expensive, and though some of us radicals might like government being so restricted, most would probably consider such ballot use an unworkable proposition.

It would serve little purpose to require an enhanced council or voter approval if the citizenry isn’t aware of the city’s project proposals. The city should be required to use all the communication tools available to it, including news releases to local media and posting on the city’s and relevant department’s websites.

The city should be required to provide written notice to all those who will be most affected by a proposed project, particularly those with property near or in the path of the project and those facing an increase in a fee or a rate.

This notice should be sent out at least 60 days before a referenda or council vote on the proposal, allowing citizens time to think, question, research and organize. Notices online and to the media should be required at the same time.

There should be a well-publicized public meeting at least 30 days before a vote, with the attendance of the mayor and others involved in developing and implementing the proposal required in order to answer questions and receive feedback. Council members would be strongly advised to attend these meetings. Residents would then have the opportunity to provide input that might improve a project and express their desires to their council representatives.

The law should require that the city and/or the department proposing a project show due diligence in researching the correctness of their premises. An assertion that a problem exists, a project is a good idea or that one way to address a problem is better than another should not be sufficient to justify major spending or activity. A mayor saying something is true doesn’t make it so. Evidence must be required.

This law should affirm that the city must obtain all appropriate permits required by state and federal agencies. Taxpayers should be protected from the expenses of fines and lawsuits stemming from other individuals’ behavior.

The law should have teeth, but not ones that come back to bite taxpayers. Consequences should be directed at the individuals who acted counter to the law and the will of the people. There should be penalties such as fines, loss of salary or even removal from office.

This law would bring for a vote Jeffersonville Mayor Tom Galligan’s canal project. This law would prohibit the destruction of 15 acres of publicly owned woods without the knowledge of the park’s neighbors or the public, a specific vote by the council or any showing of research to support the wisdom of the project.

Now, someone needs to get this into the proper language for an ordinance. Feel free to call it the Kelley Plan.

Jeffersonville resident Kelley Curran hopes new laws with teeth get enacted soon, or else she’s going to gnash hers down to the gumline. Write her at kelinawriterhat@aol.com