During the legislative session, I often attend Third House meetings on Saturday mornings. Because District 23 covers parts of five counties, sometimes the morning meetings double up, and I can do two counties on one day. That was the case on Saturday, as I attended a meeting in Nappanee at 8 a.m. and then to Warsaw for another one at 9:30 a.m. (I arrived at 10).

Because of the weather (ice and snow), attendance was off a little, but still, 17 people were in Nappanee, and about 25 were in Warsaw. The topic at both was – you guessed it – property tax relief. All of the representatives and senators present spoke, answered questions and listened to comments to the best of their ability.

The people attending both meetings were very congenial and asked thoughtful questions.

After months of discussion, this whole property tax issue has become a very discussable topic. People seem to have their own takes on an appropriate solution, and it usually falls in their favor.
As I have told you before, most testimony will favor the person’s own situation and not give consideration to the bigger picture. As a representative of the people of District 23, I listen and try to develop a range of parameters that may be acceptable. I also must look at the larger picture of what is best for the state of Indiana. They don’t always perfectly coincide.

Placing caps on residential, rental and business property taxes, plus raising the sales tax 1 percent to have the state take over school, transportation and welfare levies seems like a reasonable solution on first blush. It does create winners and losers, however.
The winners are the homeowners, who have a 1 percent of assessed value cap placed on their property. Citizens still vulnerable to considerable increases are owners of rentals, farms and businesses.

A balance must be struck and agreed upon, and all parties need to adopt some portion of global thinking. Probably the best solution for this whole property tax problem is one that no one really likes. It would distribute the pain of paying taxes over a wide base. The trick of making this happen is enough agreement by the General Assembly to make it happen. That’s not easy.

First, we must vote for a sales tax increase. Second, we vote for a plan without universal acceptance that creates winners and losers.
Third, it places hard limits on local government and education.
Legislators continue to analyze all the data about taxing districts and the proposals before them.

I pledge to “choke the data ’til it confesses.”  There must be an answer that we can all support.

On Friday, many from the legislature attended funeral services for former Rep. Richard Mangus from Lakeville, Ind. He had served in the House for 32 years and become an icon for many of us. His critics called him gruff and unkempt, but his supporters (I was one) knew he was a sly old fox who understood the system and worked it to his advantage.

Dick was a dairy farmer whose life was interrupted when the expansion of U.S. 31 cut into his farm in northern Indiana. He ran for the legislature and stayed for 32 years. His wife, Mary, has ties to the Leedy family in Deedsville, Ind., and Dick knew much about Miami County as well as Marshall and St. Joseph.

Dick Mangus was my friend, mentor and example, and I am very proud to have known him.

On at least two occasions, his diabetes had him feeling bad, and I drove him in the Lincoln back home.

He always spoke in the absolute, “You can’t do that!” or “You have to do that!” I know one absolute: Richard Mangus always described himself as a “nobody-dairy farmer” but he engineered great things for everybody in this state. I miss his presence and his advice.

State Rep. Bill Friend (R-Peru, Ind.)