What Happened to the Democracy Pete Buttigieg Championed in South Bend?

Photo by John Gress Media Inc via Shutterstock

By Sarah Fishburn | Redress South Bend

Jan 28, 2026

In an exclusive interview with the South Bend Tribune last week, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg offered a simple definition of democracy: “All of us should want to live in a system where our leaders have to listen to us, and that’s called democracy.”

It was a powerful reminder of what South Bend once aspired to be. It was also an indictment of what South Bend is rapidly becoming.

The Tribune’s interview, conducted by Juliane Balog and published January 26, presented Buttigieg speaking plainly about democracy, civic engagement, and the obligation of leaders to listen. He spoke about citizen participation and the necessity of reform when institutions stop delivering. His words landed with uncomfortable clarity in a city where elected leaders are actively narrowing the very channels through which residents speak.

The current South Bend Common Council is doing precisely what Buttigieg warned against: dismantling mechanisms of public accountability while insisting, implausibly, that democracy remains intact.

Over the past two years, the Council has brought forward a series of structural changes that cut directly against citizen participation.

First, Ordinance 72-24, sponsored only by Council President Sharon McBride and At-Large Member Karen White, attempted to strip citizen members of their voting roles on standing committees. Those committees are where most legislative scrutiny actually happens, and they have historically included residents to ensure community perspectives are not filtered solely through elected intermediaries.

Second, the Council filed Ordinance 73-24, attempting to repeal and replace the long-standing “Privilege of the Floor” rules governing public comment.

Third, the Council filed Bill 01-26, sponsored by Canneth Lee, Troy Warner, and Rachel Tomas Morgan, which would repeal and replace Chapter 2, Article 1, Section 2-10.1 of the Municipal Code and eliminate the formal process for filing complaints against Common Council members. The bill is currently pending and is scheduled for first reading on January 26, 2026. Under the existing code, complaints could be filed by any member of the public or initiated by at least two members of the Rules Committee. Bill 01-26 abolishes that process entirely. It leaves no internal mechanism for residents, Rules Committee members, or any other council members to bring misconduct complaints before the Council. The ordinance redirects complaints to police, prosecutors, or the ballot box. It is framed as an efficiency reform. In practice, it strips citizens and elected officials alike of any accountability.

These measures have been framed as decorum updates, but in practice they tighten time limits, restrict topic eligibility, empower the presiding officer to silence speakers, forbid response from officials, and eliminate the ability to file complaints when misconduct or ordinance violations occur.

In plain terms, the public may speak, briefly, selectively, and only within boundaries defined entirely by those in power.

This is not modernization. It is containment.

What makes this public-access reversal particularly jarring is that it comes from a political lineage that once made transparency and public engagement central to South Bend’s civic identity.

In 2013, Pete Buttigieg signed Executive Order 2-2013, establishing South Bend’s Open Data Policy and Portal for Public Information. The order committed the city to publishing public data online in open, machine-readable formats and to developing “a culture that supports the provision and use of open data.” It was a concrete declaration that government information belongs to the public.

In 2014, Buttigieg signed Executive Order 1-2014, amending the City’s Ethics Code to ensure transparency, accountability, and ethical governance across boards, commissions, departments, and offices. The order emphasized that the Ethics Code exists “for the benefit of City residents” and that officials must adhere to standards that are “consistent, transparent, understood, and most importantly, followed.”

Those were not symbolic gestures. They were structural commitments.

And they make today’s retreat from public involvement impossible to excuse.

Mayor James Mueller, Buttigieg’s handpicked successor, was formally endorsed by Buttigieg when he first ran for office. Mueller was Buttigieg’s former Executive Director of Community Investment and campaigned as the continuation of the Buttigieg era.

The current Common Council leadership did the same. Several members publicly supported Buttigieg’s presidential run. Some campaigned for him, some campaigned WITH him, and many still invoke his legacy when it is politically convenient.

So how did a political coalition built on civic reform drift so far from a policy as fundamental as public participation?

This is not a marginal issue. Public involvement is the core of democratic legitimacy. Committees shape ordinances. Public comment is the only formal way residents confront elected officials on the public record.

When a city government limits those mechanisms, it is not improving efficiency. It is reducing accountability.

Buttigieg warned against exactly this complacency.

“America’s democratic system didn’t prevail just because,” he told the Tribune. “They prevailed because it led to better everyday results. And if it’s not doing that, we need to be ready to reform it.”

South Bend’s leaders are reforming in the wrong direction, and the Mayor and Common Council owe residents a public explanation for why participation, accountability, and transparency are being narrowed rather than strengthened.

If democracy means leaders listening to the people, as Pete Buttigieg himself insisted, then South Bend’s current leadership is failing democracy itself.