(H/t to Mr. Stinson for the heads up) House Bill 1241 – Physician assistants. Passed out of committee and is headed to the Senate floor.

Authorizes a physician to delegate to a physician assistant duties that are within the supervising physician’s scope of practice, including prescribing and dispensing certain drugs and medical devices. Requires that a supervising physician must be either: (1) physically present at the location where services are performed by the physician assistant; or (2) immediately available for consultation and in the county or a contiguous county of the location where the services are being rendered or at a hospital or health facility. Requires the supervisory agreement between the physician and the physician assistant to include certain information and be approved by the medical licensing board. Establishes requirements for a physician assistant to prescribe certain drugs. Requires the patient to be seen by the physician in certain circumstances. Changes references from certification to licensure of physician assistants. Makes certain other changes concerning the physician assistant committee and licensure of physician assistants.

If Dr. T is around, I’d be interested in his take on this legislation.

Senate Bill 327 concerning HPV immunization for school age girls has been watered down quite a bit since its introduction. When it was introduced, it required that all female children entering grade 6 be previously immunized against the human pappillomavirus which can cause cervical cancer. (But, it was more of a guideline than a “requirement” in that a student couldn’t be prohibited from attending school for not having the “required” immunization.) This went along with the required immunizations already in place, such as those against diptheria, whooping cough, and mumps. Then, in committee, it turned into more of an informational requirement imposed on the middle schools. They are required to inform parents about the link between HPV and cervical cancer and of the availability of an immunization and to collect data from the parents about whether the girls are getting immunized to transmit to the state department of health.

[tags]SB327-2007, public health[/tags]

Senate Bill 276 amends the law concerning wage payments to give employers a little extra time before they have to cough up an employee’s wages. Currently they have to pay at least twice per month, and each paycheck has to consist of everything that’s owed at a point 10 days prior to the paycheck. So, for example, if you get paid on the 15th of the month, then you have to be paid all you have earned up to the 5th of the month. The proposed new law amends this to specify 10 “business” days. “Business days” excludes Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays even if, apparently, you earned your wages on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. So, on the 15th, depending how the days of the week fall, you’d have to be paid everything earned up to the 3rd of the month.

It screws workers just a little, but not a huge deal. You take a hit on the first paycheck, you get a little extra on the last paycheck, and the ones in the middle are the same. The bill contains an interesting noncode provision:

(b) Having received and considered testimony concerning the customary and usual wage payment practices of employers, it is the intent of the general assembly that the ten (10) day period referenced in IC 22-2-5-1, before its amendment by this act, be construed as ten (10) business days (as defined in IC 22-2-5-0.5, as added by this act).

Indiana doesn’t have legislative histories to assist courts in their interpretations. This is an effort to give the courts a retroactive legislative history to assist them in interpreting an unambiguous provision. Current law says “Payment shall be made for all wages earned to a date not more than ten (10) days prior to the date of payment.” There is nothing in existing language that even hints at the possibility that Saturdays and Sundays ought to be excluded from the reckoning. I’ll be interested to see whether a court does anything more than laugh at this noncode provision. I’d also be interested to know whose constituent is getting sued for messing up wage payments and is trying to save themselves retroactively.

Or, maybe I’m all wet. Maybe there is a compelling reason for that noncode provision, not tailored to the situation of any particular constituent. In any event, this bill passed the House 93 to 0 and has been returned to the Senate.

[tags]SB276-2007, labor[/tags]

Senate Bill 30 regarding education foundations passed the House 90 to 0 and was returned to the Senate without amendment, so no need to go to conference committee.

Provides that until June 30, 2012, the governing body of a school corporation may donate up to $25,000 per year from the general fund of the school corporation to a public school endowment corporation for the future use of the school corporation for programs and activities that enhance the quality of education or extend learning opportunities for students of the school corporation. Requires matching private funds on at least a dollar for dollar basis for each dollar contributed by a school corporation.

I don’t mind this bill. In fact, it could have good consequences for the schools able to take advantage of it. But, from what I recall of my K-12 days, none of the schools I attended probably could have taken advantage of this bill, given the budgetary constraints under which they seemed to be working. Seems like the school boards of Richmond Community Schools during the 80s were generally cutting programs. I don’t see how they could have eked $25k out of the budget to invest in an education foundation. Maybe times have changed.

[tags]SB30-2007, education[/tags]

It looks like the Senate has passed a version of House Bill 1237 and sent it back to the House with Amendments. Both chambers passed a bill that requires occupants in pick up trucks and SUVs to wear seat belts and for all occupants of the motor vehicle to wear seat belts instead of just in the front seat.

The Senate apparently removed House provisions that would’ve prohibited police from using traffic stops as a means of “educating” the public about the benefits of using a safety belt. In addition, the Senate removed the provision that would have prohibited operating a truck on a public highway while an individual is in the open bed of a truck. That’s not already a law?

But, the biggest sticking point is probably the Senate’s removal of a provision that would have altered the computation of how the funds in the local road and street funds are allocated. I can never remember who wins and who loses under which formulation. But, currently the allocation depends on the ratio of passenger cars in the county compared to the passenger cars in the state overall. The House version of the bill changed the ratio to be County (passenger cars + pickup trucks)/State (passenger cars + pickup trucks). So, that would alter the distribution. If that was a critical way to sell the pickup truck seat belt law to representatives with counties having a lot of pickup trucks, then there is a fair chance of seeing this thing die in conference committee. I’m just guessing though.

[tags]HB1237-2007, motor vehicles[/tags]

Senate Bill 247 concerning various motor vehicle matters is now up on Second Reading. The only amendment that passed was a somewhat closely contested provision that requires a passenger vehicle license plate to display a numeral indicating the county in which the passenger car is registered. The standard plates already do this, but I believe this provision would apply to the specialty plates as well. That amendment prevailed 63 to 32.

The bill also contains a provision for an officer to generate an electronic traffic ticket. Apparently the officer would print out a hard copy on sight, but would be transmitted to a court and would be considered by the court as an original certified copy of the traffic information and summons or complaint and summons. Probably an effective use of technology, but still a little creepy.

[tags]SB247-2007, motor vehicles[/tags]

Update I got some of these wrong — At least SJR 3, SJR 5, and SJR 14.

Original post

Thought I’d take a look at the status of the various amendments proposed to the Indiana Constitution. (As they pass through the General Assembly, they are in the form of a “Joint Resolution.”) A full list is here.

SJR 2 – Coroners. Defeated in the Senate 20 to 27. Would have allowed the General Assembly to prescribe qualifications for the office of coroner.

SJR 3 – Next Generation Trust Fund. This would have constitutionally secured some of the proceeds from the Toll Road Privatization, thereby preventing future Governors and General Assemblies from raiding the piggie bank. This was assigned by Sen. Long to the Rules Committee, traditionally a legislative graveyard.

SJR 4 – Senate confirmation of agency heads. Another corpse in the Rules Committee. It would have required Senate confirmation of the agency heads appointed by the Governor.

SJR 5 – Military and overseas voters. Would have allowed extension of the vote to a non-resident if the person is the child of an Indiana voter who lives overseas. Died in Rules.

SJR 7 – Definition of marriage. Defines marriage in Indiana as being between one man and one woman. Also prohibits the extension of the “incidents of marriage” to unmarried couples. Passed the Senate 39 to 10. Assigned to the House Rules Committee. At this point, it’s unclear if it went there to be buried or for some other purpose.

SJR 12 – Court mandates. Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee but never got a hearing. It would have prohibited courts from mandating that the state or a political subdivision expend money for the operation of any court. (Currently, for example, county courts have an advantage over other agencies seeking money from a county council for staff pay or other operational needs of the court. The other agencies pretty much just have to do without. A court can issue a mandate ordering the council to cough up the desired money.) (See this entry from the Indiana Law Blog and its internal links for some more information on the debate.)

SJR 13 – Redistricting commission. Takes the decennial redistricting out of the hands of the General Assembly and creates a redistricting commission. Referred to the Committee on Local Government and Elections but did not get a hearing.

SJR 14 – Constitutional right to hunt and fish. Died in the Rules Committee.

SJR 15 – Prohibition of property taxes for school operating costs. Referred to the Committee on Tax and Fiscal Policy but did not get a hearing.

SJR 16 – Elimination of authority to impose property taxes. Authored by Senators Hume, Miller, Weatherwax, Delph, Drozda, Kruse, Lewis, Nugent, Steele, Walker, Waltz, Waterman, Young. Referred to the Committee on Tax and Fiscal Policy. Didn’t get a hearing. Something tells me they didn’t try too hard. 13 authors constitutes over 25% of the Senate.

HJR 1 – Term limits for county offices. Would have eliminated term limits for the county clerk, auditor, recorder, and treasurer. Died in Rules.

HJR 2 – Free text books. Would have required the general assembly to provide students with textbooks free of charge. Died in Rules.

HJR 3 – Legislative terms. Would limit an individual to 24 years of service as a member of the General Assembly. Died in Rules.

HJR 4 – Local government consolidation. Provides that a county legislative body may consolidate, eliminate, or prescribe additional qualifications for any of the county’s constitutional offices. Would also allow the General Assembly to provide for consolidation of counties into one county. Died in Rules.

HJR 5 – Supermajority for tax increases. Would require a 2/3 majority for tax increases. Died in Rules.

HJR 6 – Sessions of the General Assembly. Changes the default starting date for sessions of the General Assembly from it’s current January date to the first Monday in February. Died in Rules.

HJR 7 – Constitutional right to hunt and fish. Died in Rules.

HJR 8 – Term of office of county sheriff. Lengthens a sheriff’s term from 4 years to 6. All together now: Died in Rules.

HJR 9 – Redistricting. Allows the General Assembly to establish a commission to draw districts. Died in Rules.

HJR 10 – English as official language of Indiana. Decrees that the English language is the official language of Indiana. Died in Rules.

HJR 11 – Common school fund. Provides that: (1) the principal of the common school fund may be appropriated only to reduce the unfunded accrued liability of a public pension fund established for Indiana teachers; and (2) the general assembly may authorize the income of the common school fund to be used to reduce the unfunded accrued liability of a public pension fund established for Indiana teachers. Referred to Ways & Means but didn’t get a hearing.

HJR 12 – County offices. Removes the offices of county auditor, county recorder, county treasurer, and county surveyor from the Constitution of the State of Indiana. (WTF?) Died in Rules.

HJR 13 – Early learning trust fund. Transfers the balance of the common school fund to the early learning trust fund. Allows the principal and income of the early learning trust fund to be used only for educational programs for children before entering primary school, including kindergarten. Repeals provisions requiring the common school fund to be invested for the benefit of the counties, requiring counties to preserve the common school fund, and requiring that all trust funds held by the state remain inviolate and be applied to the purposes for which the trust was created. Passed the House by a vote of 51 to 46. Referred to the Senate Committee on Education and Career Development.

HJR 14 – Prohibition against property taxation. Died in Rules.

HJR 15 – Definition of marriage. Defines marriage in Indiana as being between one man and one woman. Also prohibits the extension of the “incidents of marriage” to unmarried couples. Died in Rules.

Senate Bill 212 passed the House 96 to 0. Seems like a good bill. Upon receipt of a written request by the personal representative of a decedent and a copy of the death certificate, the bill requires a person who electronically stores the documents or information of the decedent to give the personal representative of the estate access to, or copies of, the documents or information. It also prohibits the person receiving such a request from destroying the documents or information for two years.

[tags]SB212-2007, probate[/tags]