Republican State Senator Merlin Bartz set the bar high for irony on the opening day of the 2012 legislative session. Bartz sought publicity for a bill he has introduced to remove “frivolous, obsolete, and redundant mandates” from the Iowa Code.

On the one hand, that’s a worthwhile effort for the ranking member of the Iowa Senate Local Government Committee. On the other hand, a guy who’s using a 19th-century law to force neighbors to pay for half of his new fence might not be the best standard-bearer for this cause.

From a January 9 press release:

Senator Merlin Bartz (R-Grafton) introduced legislation today aimed at cutting through burdensome red tape and creating efficiencies in county and local government.

“The intent of this legislation is to examine all frivolous, obsolete, and redundant mandates in all levels of government and take all necessary action to restructure or eliminate those mandates to make government more efficient,” said Bartz, Ranking Member of the Senate Local Government Committee.

The Restructure or Eliminate Frivolous, Obsolete, and Redundant Mandates in Governments Acts or REFORM bill was written after Senator Bartz spearheaded his own, independent effort to identify inefficiencies in local government.

Bartz credited the Iowa State Association of Counties and the Iowa League of Cities with helping draft proposals to “streamline government.” The press release contains approving comments from both organizations’ executive directors. A recent report by the Iowa State Association of Counties (pdf) listed 1,300 county mandates in the Iowa Code, grouped into 37 categories.

Bartz’s bill cites 17 local government mandates to be eliminated. Some of the changes sound logical, such as relieving county attorneys of the obligation to help enforce Iowa’s “oleomargarine” food labeling law. (Side note: I don’t think I’ve heard anyone in Iowa refer to “oleo” for at least 20 years.)

Some of the changes sound questionable, such as altering notice requirements for drainage district improvements or National Pollution Discharge Elimination permits. I am seeking further information about the implications of those parts of the bill.

All of the proposals sound ironic in light of Bartz’s stubborn demand that his Worth County neighbors pay half the cost of upgrading a fence along the property line. He needs the improvements in order to graze cattle on a certain pasture. His neighbors have appealed the ruling of the local fence viewers. Bleeding Heartland discussed the controversy in detail here. Bartz’s neighbors argue that the relevant portion of Iowa Code, adopted more than 150 years ago, is obsolete now that many rural residents do not raise livestock, and livestock farmers often keep their animals in confinement buildings.

Bartz is facing a competitive re-election campaign against Democratic State Senator Mary Jo Wilhelm this year. I’m sure he would love to tell voters that he helped reduce burdensome regulations on cities and counties throughout his district. That would sound more impressive than trying to pressure county recorders not to implement an Iowa Supreme Court ruling, or seeking to block rules that would allow same-sex couples to pitch more than one tent at state-run campsites. Come to think of it, that was one of the most “frivolous” crusades I’ve seen an Iowa legislator undertake.

UPDATE: If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I guess I should be flattered. From the Sunday Des Moines Register’s editorial section on January 15:

A rose to State Sen. Merlin Bartz for proposing to weed out some superfluous and obsolete provisions of the Iowa Code. One example: rules for proper labeling of oleomargarine. The Iowa Code, which has grown to 10,481 pages in six volumes, up from 4,355 pages in three volumes in 1987, could stand to go on a diet. Still, what might strike one legislator as obsolete may be carved in stone to another. For example, it’s interesting that Bartz did not propose striking a provision that’s been in the code since the 19th century that requires abutting land owners to share the cost of fences. Could it be that’s because Bartz used that law to force his neighbors to help pay for a fence he wants to build on the property line?