Senate Bill 27 – Sen Waltz:

Homeowners association election disputes. Requires the parties to a dispute involving the election of a director or an officer of a homeowners association or condominium association to attempt to resolve the dispute through the use of mediation before bringing an action in a court. Provides that, if the parties cannot resolve the dispute and an action is brought in a court, the court: (1) may, on its own motion; and (2) shall, upon the motion of any party to the dispute; refer the case to any appropriate type of alternative dispute resolution selected by the court under the Indiana supreme court rules for alternative dispute resolution.

This one sounds pretty specific. I’m going to guess, without knowing, that one of Sen. Waltz’s Greenwood constituents had a homeowner’s association related food fight in the courts.

[tags]sb27-2007, courts[/tags]

SB 35 – Sen. Rogers:

Provides that an individual who: (1) obtained student loans to pay for postsecondary education from an institution located in Indiana; and (2) resides and works in Indiana after graduating from a postsecondary institution; may enter into an agreement with the state student assistance commission to have the commission assume the repayment of 25% of the principal and interest due on the student loan each year the individual resides and works in Indiana. Limits the repayment program to those students who graduate after June 30, 2007.

The question, as always, is how to pay for this sort of thing. But, it’s a nice idea. Pay 25% of the student loan obligation for the year if the individual went to college in Indiana and resides and works in Indiana. Wonder what happens if you get laid off at some point during the year? Or, if you only have to work for a portion of the year in question, can you just work one day that year and get your 25%? So, I guess there is more than one question. Still, a nice idea.

[tags]SB35-2007, brain drain, education[/tags]

Senate Bill 0014 – Sen. Jackman.

Public-private agreements for railroads. Adds passenger and freight railroad systems to the definition of “project” for purposes of public-private agreements by the department of transportation (INDOT). Provides that INDOT may issue a request for proposals and enter into a public-private agreement for a railroad project without legislative approval.

Rep. Niezgodski fears that this is aimed at privatizing the South Shore. (h/t Taking Down Words). Recall the hubub a couple of months ago when NICTD general manager, Gerald Hanas reported that he’d been approached by INDOT to consider privatization options for the South Shore. Gov. Daniels denied any interest in privatizing the South Shore.

Sen. Jackman has responded that “Nobody’s going to sell or lease the South Shore” and that doing so is “absolutely not the intent” of the legislation. Regardless of intent, it seems that with this legislation in place, the Indiana Department of Transportation and/or the Indiana Finance authority would be empowered to enter into a long-term lease of any passenger or freight railroad in Indiana under IC 8-15.7. I certainly haven’t done a line-by-line comparison, but if memory serves, this kind of language was in HB 1008-2006 but taken out to get the Toll Road Privatization passed.
[tags]SB14-2007, privatization, toll road, south shore[/tags]

Senate Bill 0099 – Sen. Alting:

Provides that university and college police may exercise their police powers in any part of Indiana.

Currently the jurisdiction of university police is limited to property owned or occupied by the university, including adjacent streets. That jurisdiction can be expanded by agreement with the Sheriff or Chief of police for the territory into which additional jurisdiction is sought.

[tags]SB99-2007, public safety[/tags]

Senate Bill 95 – Senator Ford:

Operation of license branches by contractors. Provides that if a qualified person demonstrates to the bureau of motor vehicles commission that the person can meet the statutory requirements to operate a license branch or to provide partial services, the commission shall award a contract to the qualified person to provide license branch services or partial services. Provides that a contractor that operates a license branch or provides partial services is not required to collect statutory service charges but may collect and keep any service fees the contractor considers necessary to provide the services. Requires a contractor to collect and pay to the bureau of motor vehicles a transaction fee that recovers the costs to the state, as determined by the bureau and the state board of accounts, to support license branch services. Eliminates the requirement that a contractor provide a cash bond as the fidelity bond to secure performance of the contract. Provides that the commission is not required to replace any license branch operated by the commission with a license branch operated by a contractor. Adds insurance producers to the list of entities that are “qualified persons” (Currently, “qualified persons” are motor clubs, financial institutions, new car dealers and others approved by the BMV.)

Current law leaves it up to the discretion of the BMV as to whether to give qualified persons a contract. The proposed law requires the BMV to enter into the contract. Unlike government run branches, the private branches would not be required to collect the service charges listed in IC 9-29-3. Instead, the private branch could collect as much or as little as it chose.
[tags]BMV, privatization, SB95-2007[/tags]

Rep. Dickinson has introduced HB 1045 which would require a review of contract savings whenever a political subdivision contracts for the private performance of functions performed by governmental employees. The private contractor must provide verifiable evidence that the cost to the political subdivision will be less under the private contract than having the functions performed by governmental employees. The contract must specify that the political subdivision may not pay more to the private contractor than it would have paid to have the functions performed by governmental employees. The political subdivision must determine what the actual cost is to have the function performed by its employees. And, the employees essentially get a right of first refusal where they can offer to provide the function at the cost cited by the private contractor.

On the one hand, it seems like a huge bureaucratic hassle. On the other hand, it would be nice to have actual evidence that privatizing saves money rather than merely having it accepted as an article of faith.
[tags]HB1045-2007, privatization[/tags]

Representative Torr has introduced HB 1024, a piece of so called “right to work” legislation. Basically, it weakens unions or potential unions by forbidding charges to non-union members, regardless of whether the charge goes to the union or simply goes to a third-party charity. This essentially allows non-union members to enjoy the benefits of working in a union shop in some cases without paying for those benefits, creating a “free-rider” problem.

Cindy Noe introduced similar legislation last year that didn’t go very far. (H/t Charlie Averill for catching the Noe legislation.) I suspect in a Democratic House, this one is dead in the water as well.

From a libertarian standpoint, it seems like a natural — just let individuals negotiate and let the market decide. Unfortunately, the marketplace has already been skewed by the invention of the corporation and allowing corporation to be treated as individuals while shielding the actual individuals involved from liability for the corporation’s actions. That’s not to mention the inequality of bargaining power when an individual worker purports to negotiate with a corporation. Without healthy unions, wages tend to stagnate. Perhaps there is a non-union, pro-individual solution to wage stagnation, but we haven’t found it in this country.

[tags]HB1024-2007, labor[/tags]