Rep. Jerry Torr, who spearheaded the legislative effort to put Indiana on Eastern Daylight Time, wrote a letter to the editor entitled Thanks for DST support; now support amendment. As you may recall, after 30 years of continuous effort, Daylight Saving Time proponents finally succeeded, by the thinnest possible margin, in putting Indiana on DST. They were successful by only one vote in the Indiana House of Representatives, and that success came after a number of parliamentary maneuvers that gave the DST bill more lives than Rasputin and then they had to flip Troy Woodruff who had promised his constituents he would “never” vote for Daylight Saving Time. Woodruff lost his job in the next election, but Daylight Saving Time is still with us. Rep. Torr would now like the federal government to prevent DST opponents from being able to change Indiana’s time choice through the General Assembly.

In his letter to the editor, he represents that Senator Bayh congratulated Celadon CEO Steve Russell’s award of “Global Business Person of the Year” by the World Trade Club. In the course of Bayh’s remarks, he apparently mentioned Russell’s involvement in moving Indiana to Daylight Saving Time. I do not know whether Bayh explicitly endorsed DST, but Rep. Torr asserts that Sen. Bayh has declared DST a good thing for Indiana. Be that as it may, that is the unremarkable part of Rep. Torr’s letter. The more remarkable aspect is this:

I would also like for the senator to consider amending the Uniform Time Act to repeal the “Indiana exception” so that no future General Assembly could put Indiana in the same convoluted time-zone configuration of the past.

Got that? Having gotten what he wanted, by the thinnest of margins and without any particular consensus among the citizens of Indiana, he wants to take decision making about Indiana time out of the hands of Hoosiers.

I like Rep. Torr. I got to know him a bit during my time with the General Assembly. He is a smart, affable guy. And, while I disagree with his preference for Eastern Daylight Time, this is a subject on which folks can very reasonably disagree. But, encouraging the federal government to take power away from Hoosiers to solidify his side’s advantage only now that his side has gained the upper hand after 3 decades of trying, strikes me as dirty pool.

Also, it bears mentioning, that the “Indiana Exception,” as Senator Torr calls it was largely the work of Senator Evan Bayh’s father, Birch Bayh. Without that exception as part of the compromise, if memory serves, much of Indiana would have remained in the Central Time Zone. This amounts to a 30 year bait and switch. Put most of Indiana in the Eastern Zone so that, with the “Indiana Exception” the state could functionally be on year round Central Daylight Time (even if you labeled it “Eastern Standard Time”), then get rid of the ability to be on one time year around and leave Indiana on what amounts to “double daylight time” for 7+ months out of the year.

[tags]DST[/tags]

Senate Bill 577 Lottery. Senator Merritt.

Authorizes the state lottery commission, the Indiana gaming commission, and the Indiana finance authority to enter into a management agreement for the operation of the lottery. Establishes the Hoosier hope scholarship program. Establishes the world class scholar program. Makes an appropriation.

This bill would authorize completion of a process set in motion by the Governor back in December through an executive order which requires the Indiana Finance Authority to implement Hoosier Lotter privatization and negotiate with potential operators. Specifically, it directs the IFA to use its existing powers to retain consultants, attorneys, and investment bankers in connection with the project. It is further directed to use the resources of other state agencies, in particular the resources of the Indiana Lottery Commission and the Indiana Gaming Commission.

Mary Beth Schneider, writing for the Indianapolis Star, has an article entitled Hoosier Lottery Lease Deadline Passes. Yesterday was the deadline for companies to respond to a Request for Proposals for privatizing the lottery. The Governor’s office did not know how many companies had responded and said that it didn’t think the names of the companies would be made public.

It seems to me there is a lot of secrecy and putting the cart before the horse in this whole process. First we’ll get the ball rolling on privatizing the lottery. Then maybe we’ll dangle a bunch of cash in front of you, but we won’t tell you the all the information we received in the RFP process. Finally, at the end of the process, we’ll have a policy debate about whether we should actually do this and perhaps, almost as an after thought, get some legal authorization for the undertaking.

In any event, the lottery privatization faces “very long odds,” to use Speaker Bauer’s punny assessment.

He believes that the only way a private company could substantially increase lottery revenue in order to make money on the deal is by greatly expanding gambling. Bauer is among numerous lawmakers who have said they oppose that.

. . . [Senator Luke] Kenley, chairman of the Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee, said he doesn’t share some lawmakers’ concerns about putting the lottery under private management, [but] he does have doubts about Daniels’ plan.

Daniels wants to use the money to fund merit-based college scholarships that would not have to be paid back if the recipient stays in Indiana for three years after graduation. He also wants to direct some to a program to attract top professors and researchers.

Kenley, though, said he is not convinced the scholarships would solve Indiana’s “brain drain” problem, as students will leave so long as they receive better job offers in other states.

And the proposal to spend money to attract top professors is “too vague,” he said. “It doesn’t have any accountability in it. They just give the money to presidents of the universities. That’s not going to be good enough.”

Kenley said the legislature needs to debate not only whether the lottery should be privatized, but also whether higher education is the best use of the revenue.

He said full-day kindergarten, police and fire pensions, or property tax relief — at least on a temporary basis until a long-term solution is found — could be better uses for the money.

[tags]SB577-2007, privatization[/tags]

Senate Bill 18 Handgun sales. Sen. Steele. Eliminates the requirement that a handgun dealer, after selling a handgun to a purchaser, forward to the state police department a copy of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Form 4473 completed and signed by the purchaser. This passed the Senate on Third Reading unanimously.

So, Saturday night when I was watching the movie “Red Dawn,” it turns out, I wasn’t watching a crappy 80s movie (that would’ve been Rambo II which I flipped to during commercials.) No, in fact, I was doing research. Form 4473 is mentioned in Red Dawn as an argument against gun control, with the fear being that 4473s will become a “shopping list” for confiscation.

In any event, that’s certainly more believable than the idea that an invading Soviet army would send the Cubans to occupy the mountains of Colorado.

[tags]SB18-2007, gun control[/tags]

House Bill 1132 Notice of plant closing or mass layoff. Rep. Tyler. Generally, this bill would require large employers to give employees at least 60 days notice before closing a plant or undergoing a mass layoff. This one passed out of the House Labor and Employment committee on a party line vote of 6 to 4. It had been called down for Third Reading but was apparently recalled before the vote was actually held.

[tags]HB1132-2007, labor[/tags]

Lots of amendments biting the dust on Second Reading for House Bill 1027.

(Just a refresher civics course here — the life of a bill is that it’s introduced and after First Reading, it goes to committee where committee members can pass it, amend it and pass it, or kill it. It comes out of committee and undergoes Second Reading where any member of the chamber can propose an amendment. Finally, it undergoes Third Reading where the members vote on final passage. If it clears that stage, it gets referred to the other chamber (House bills go to the Senate & vice versa). The bill undergoes the same process in the second chamber. If it comes out unchanged, then it goes to the Governor. If it is changed, it goes to a conference committee where the Senate and House try to hammer out their differences. The conference committee version of the bill goes to both chambers for a final vote, and if it gets approved by both chambers, it goes to the Governor. Anyone else have the Schoolhouse Rock “I’m Just a Bill” going through their heads at this point?)

So, back to HB 1027. If you’ll recall, this is the one that started as a minimum wage increase bill. In committee, the Democrats voted to add an amendment that doubled the inheritance tax exemption. The Republicans objected, wanting to eliminate the inheritance tax instead.

Now, on Second Reading, a series of proposed amendments have gone down to defeat, apparently along party lines. Rep. T. Brown’s amendment would have excluded from the minimum wage requirements any employer “that offers health care benefits to its employees, including coverage for medical care, prescription drugs, vision care, medical savings accounts, or any other health related benefit.” That amendment was defeated 48 to 50.

Representative Davis’s amendment would have exempted an employer with less than $500,000 of gross revenue in a year. It was defeated 48 to 50.

Representative Stutzman’s amendment would have exempted an employer that is exempt from federal gross income tax under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Defeated 48 to 50.

Rep. Ripley’s amendment would have amended a provision with which I am unfamiliar called the Skills 2016 Training Program which is part of the unemployment compensation system. Apparently employers are currently required to pay nine one hundredth’s percent (0.0009) of their prior year’s taxable wages to fund this program. Rep. Ripley’s amendment would have exempted from this requirement those employers with gross annual revenues of less than $500,000. Defeated 48 to 50.

UpdateBryan Corbin, writing for the Evansville Courier Press, has a story on the failed amendments. Apparently the most contested amendment was the one exempting 501(c)(3) organizations.

Speaking out against that amendment were two House Democrats from Southwestern Indiana.

“This is undoing years, if not decades,

of existing minimum-wage laws in the state of Indiana,” said Rep. Russ Stilwell, D-Boonville. “This is really an attempt to exempt groups of people that always have paid into the minimum wage.”

Rep. Phil Hoy, a former executive director of the nonprofit Tri-State Food Bank, said the amendment is unnecessary. “We never paid as low as $5.15 an hour, even for your outreach program, because you want to get good people in these (nonprofit) positions,” said Hoy, D-Evansville. “We always started even our entry-level positions several dollars above minimum wage; it’s the only fair thing to do.”

[tags]HB1027-2007, labor[/tags]

As I mentioned earlier, SB 173-2007 is a bill by Senator Jackman that is something of a follow up to his bill from a couple of years ago, SB 267-2005. The original bill, allowed sort of a bait and switch where an agricultural operation could change significantly and yet be regarded as not having “changed significantly” for the purposes of being immune from a nuisance suit. Small scale agricultural operation could potentially turn into a big confined feeding operation and be immune from the neighbors filing a nuisance suit.

This year’s bill would award attorney’s fees to an agricultural operation prevailing in a nuisance suit. According to the Indiana Judicial Center, Sen. Jackman’s bill was heard by the Senate Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters Committee.

After committee debate, in which several members expressed concern about chilling justified nuisance suits, the Chair said that the bill would be held and the meeting was adjourned.

Typically, that means the bill didn’t have enough votes to pass.

[tags]SB173-2005, CAFO, agriculture[/tags]

Senate Bill 509 Death penalty. Senator Waterman. Allows incarcerated convicts who have been sentenced to at least 200 years imprisonment, an executed sentence of life imprisonment, or life imprisonment without parole to request the imposition of a death sentence. Provides protections to prevent mentally ill individuals from making the election. Allows the convict to chicken out. Allows the convict to make such an election only once.

[tags]SB509-2007, criminal law[/tags]

The perennial seat belt bill is once again in motion. This year, House Bill 1237 requires occupants of motor vehicles to wear seat belts. It passed out of the House Roads and Transportation Committee by a vote of 9 to 1. (Rep. Jim Buck voted against it.)

One of the main bones of contention is the idea of making occupants of pickup trucks wear seat belts. Back since the days when I was drafting this bill, I have contended that current law, read strictly, requires occupants of most pickup trucks to wear a seat belt. Currently, the law requires each front seat occupant of a “passenger motor vehicle” to wear a seat belt. The definition of “passenger motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle designed for carrying passengers, but specifically excludes “trucks, tractors, and recreational vehicles.” However, if you go to the definition of “truck,” it means “a motor vehicle designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.” My argument is that the vast majority of pickup trucks are used to transport passengers and are not primarily used to transport property. So, they’re best seen as passenger vehicles and not as “trucks,” as defined by the Indiana Code and, therefore, seat belts ought to be required.

(I got into this hair-splitting argument when I was asked to determine whether SUV’s were passenger vehicles or trucks under the seat belt laws.) But, we’ve gotten to where “everybody knows” you don’t have to wear a seat belt in a pickup truck. So, it doesn’t matter a bit what the law actually says. Laws are only as good as their enforcement.

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