Winter 2010

Vol. 29, No. 1

The Education of
Representative Barnes
Welfare Privatization:
Back To The Drawing Board?
The Education of
Representative Barnes
A Freshman Legislator Poses the Question:
Has Compromise Been Compromised?
By State Rep. John Barnes.
Not long after the U.S. Constitution was completed, someone
asked James Madison to describe the document’s basic prin-
ciples.
He offered three words:
“Compromise, compromise, compromise.”
In the Social Studies classes I teach at Warren Central High
School, those three words remain a constant theme. The Great
Compromise, The Missouri Compromise, The California Compro-
mise...there are many great examples of how we have managed
to forge differing opinions into a workable, functioning, represen-
tative government.
Compromise is also important in my other job, that of an elected
official in the Indiana General Assembly. I am in my first term
as representative of the 89th House District, which includes
portions of Warren, Perry and Franklin Townships and the com-
munities of Irvington, Warren Park and Beech Grove in Marion
County.
My district is split almost evenly between Republicans and Demo-
crats. To truly represent my district, I must strike a balance be-
tween many different points of view.
Such circumstances require me to find a middle ground. It is de-
manded by the people I represent. Quite frankly, it is a philosophy
that I prefer to operate under in my role as a state representa-
tive.
But there are many indications that compromise is thought to be
a dirty word, particularly in government. President Obama tries
to seek bipartisanship in passing a health care plan, only to be
attacked from both sides. One side asks, “Why should we help
you pass something that helps you politically?” In turn, the other
side asks, “Why should we work with them at all? They weren’t
interested in our opinion when they were in charge. We should
we be interested in their opinion when we run things?”
Ahh, but that’s at the national level. Surely things are different
back home in Indiana...right?
Let me tell you about some of my experiences...better yet, let me
tell you about some lessons taught to the teacher.
Almost from my first day in office, it was easy to see that some
issues were “pre-polarized.” Find an area of dispute, and experts
could mark out the positions of each party.
Mention “Kernan-Shepard” and it was perceived that Republi-
cans supported it and Democrats opposed it.
“No Excuse Absentee Voting”? Democrats love it, Republicans
hate it.
The problem is that when you mark out these positions in broad
terms, there’s no wiggle room for debate. Could there be merit
found in each side’s position, and could we use those points of
concern to find middle ground? Most of the time, we never had
the chance to find out.
Take the Kernan-Shepard reforms, which are designed to
streamline our system of local government. The report issued
by the commission selected by the governor to handle this task
contained 27 different reforms.
I’m not sure most people realized the scope of this effort. When
people asked me if I supported Kernan-Shepard, I generally had to
ask them, “Which part? Eliminating township trustees? Moving
school board elections from spring to fall? Moving all elections to
even-numbered years? Consolidating fire departments?”
I did not support all 27 reforms. Some needed to be passed
into law immediately, some needed to be tossed into the trash
and others simply needed to be studied in more detail. If we had
been able to break them into individual parts, some might have
passed.
It wasn’t that easy.
There is a provision in the original Kernan-Shepard proposal that
states the reforms must be adopted as a whole. They would nev-
er be effective if enacted in a “piecemeal” fashion.
In that light, House Government and Regulatory Reform Com-
mittee Chairman John Bartlett from Lawrence, asked members
of his committee to incorporate all 27 reforms into a single
package. He then suggested that the committee vote
them up or down in that form.
Republicans on the committee voted against the
idea of putting the entire reform package into
one bill. Then, presumably not wanting their no
votes to be interpreted as actual opposition to
the reforms, they decided to walk out of the
committee hearing.
Six Democrats on the committee then voted
against sending the bill to the full House. The
bill failed with only one vote in support: mine.
To me, supporting the reforms was an easy
choice. I didn’t think that there were any ideas
that were so dangerous that we couldn’t talk about
them. I also argued that voting “yes” to the bill would
simply move it down the road so that we could debate these is-
sues in the full House at a later date.
At the time, I got a lot of attention from the press as “The Lone
Democrat” to vote for Kernan-Shepard, but I wasn’t really ex-
pressing anything but frustration with the system. In the end, we
lost an important chance to actually debate the issue of govern-
ment reform.
This frustration extended to dealings with both the governor’s
office and his administrative agencies.
My impression of the way that government operated was that
the governor, his staff and other state agencies actually tracked
all the bills that were being filed, so they could offer opinions and
suggestions as measures worked their way through the legisla-
tive process. I quickly learned otherwise.
Shortly after taking office, I filed a bill seeking improved air and
water quality in our schools. Almost immediately, the Indianapolis
Star quoted a Department of Education official who questioned
the need for my bill. This person never contacted me.
When the bill passed through the House with the support of most
Republicans, I was encouraged that there was a good chance it
would be received positively in the Senate. However, the day be-
fore the bill was scheduled to be heard in a Senate committee,
a legislative liaison from the Department of Education called me
at home to tell me that they would be speaking against the bill at
the hearing. There was no chance for discussion, debate or, of
course, compromise.
In this case, their opposition did not prevent us from passing
legislation that requires the state to adopt rules concerning the
quality of air inside our schools. Republicans and Democrats
joined forces to pass this bill. In other words, the art of compro-
mise worked.
I cannot complain about the end result. My opinions of the jour-
ney to reach that result are different.
On too many occasions, those who worked on behalf of the
governor chose to contact us at the last moment to dis-
cuss legislation we authored or a potentially difficult
vote that was coming up.
Perhaps this was nothing more than a political
ploy. They could say they notified a legislator
ahead of time without actually giving them any
time to respond. Perhaps there aren’t enough
liaisons to effectively cover all the legislation
that is passing through the system. Whatever
the case, it looks awful. Regardless of wheth-
er these tactics were insensitive or unprofes-
sional, their ultimate crime was the stifling of
debate whenever the Governor disagreed with
the Legislature.
And let us not forget the media’s role in this pro-
cess. Let us go back to the coverage of the special
Continued on Page 13.