A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

SB 583 – TANF Asset Limitation

by Leave a Comment

Sen. Errington has introduced SB 583 which would place an asset limitation for people receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF.) Families with more than $15,000 in non-exempt assets would not be eligible for TANF. When you look at the property that is exempt, however, the limitation does not strike me as overly severe. Exempt property is:

(1) Real property that is the primary residence of the family.
(2) Five thousand dollars ($5,000) of equity in one (1) motor vehicle.
(3) The current market value of any apparatus installed in a motor vehicle for the use or benefit of a disabled person.
(4) Household goods and personal effects.
(5) Livestock, farm implements, and tools used in the production of meat, dairy, or produce for home consumption.
(6) The proceeds, or any interest earned on the proceeds, of casualty insurance received as a result of: (A) damage;(B) destruction; (C) loss; or (D) theft; of exempt real or personal property if the applicant or recipient demonstrates that the proceeds are being used to replace the exempt property.
(7) One (1) burial plot and one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) of equity value in one (1) written funeral contract for each TANF family member.
(8) Real property during the first six (6) month period after the date the property is listed for sale.
(9) An individual development account established under IC 4-4-28.

The problem with trying to codify this kind of thing is that it’s tough or impossible to think of every situation where there might be assets but where you might want TANF available in any case. For example, I had some involvement in a case where a little kid was horribly burned. He got a settlement quite a bit above $15,000, but that money was put in a trust with court orders to distribute relatively small amounts every year for incidental expenses and a larger amount for ongoing medical expenses. The bulk of it, however, was set aside for the kid’s future use. The injuries were severe enough that he was going to have significant health issues, probably his entire life. Aside from the need to plan for future expenses there is always a concern that a parent, particularly a parent with money problems, might not be diligent in spending the money only for the benefit of the child.

So, in such a case, should the kid’s personal injury money be considered for TANF purposes? I would be inclined to say “no,” but certainly a credible policy argument could be made for “yes.” The point is, that is just one scenario I doubt legislators are thinking of while this legislation is under consideration. I’m sure there are countless others. Legislators have a tough job when you get right down to it.

HB 1110 – Public Employee Liability for Poor Drainage

by 2 Comments

I don’t think I like HB 1110 from Rep. Ruppell concerning public employee liability for poor drainage. It states:

A governmental entity or an employee of a governmental entity acting within the scope of the employee’s employment is liable for a loss resulting from the runoff or discharge of liquids:
(1) from real property that is:
(A) located within the boundaries of the governmental entity;
(B) owned by a person other than the person incurring the loss; and
(C) used for an industrial or a commercial purpose; and
(2) onto the surface of a road, a street, an alley, or another public way;
if the failure of the governmental entity or employee to provide adequate drainage for the liquids constitutes gross negligence,

So, if you have problems with your drainage, you can bring suit against the various governmental entities in your area if discharge from commercial property within the jurisdiction also crosses the surface of a street at some point (not necessarily related to your property under the language of the statute). You just have to allege that a government employee was “grossly negligent” in some respect — presumably for issuing a building permit or other permit.

Instead of the current situation where government tries to stop drainage problems before development but where one property owner remains liable for damage caused to another property owner; the government would in effect become guarantor of drainage in situations where you can get a “gross negligence” allegation past a judge and get a jury sympathetic enough to a property owner to find the government “grossly negligent.”

HB 1108 – Roadside memorials

by 2 Comments

HB 1108, introduced by Rep. Tincher, would require the Department of Transportation to develop a uniform roadside memorial for those who die in fatal automobile accidents. Such a memorial would have to be requested by the immediate family of the deceased. The statute is unclear on whether INDOT would have to grant the request. Non-standard memorials would be removed by INDOT, and a memorial would not be left up for more than a year.

SB 399 – Smoking Ban in Public Places

by 6 Comments

Sen. Dillon’s SB 399 imposes a smoking ban in public places. One potential I see is that the Department of Health is charged with enforcement. I don’t know if the same issues would apply, but I recall some problems with enforcement of fireworks prohibitions having to do with the State Fire Marshall being charged with enforcement and local law enforcement feeling like they were preempted from acting when they saw a violation.

Cigarette smokers will, no doubt, feel that their rights are being infringed upon. I wonder if a case can be made for requiring the continued allowance of cigarette smoking in a public place that is consistent with a continued outright ban on marijuana smoking?

SB 309 – Medically Accurate Sex Education

by 2 Comments

As a general rule, I am not enthusiastic about the General Assembly micro-managing school curriculum, but since Senator Tallian’s SB 309 merely amends some micro-managing already in place, I suppose it’s all right. It would require sex education, which already requires abstinence education, to also include information about AIDS and HIV that is “factual, medically accurate, and age appropriate.” I’d go further and say those three things are good criteria for any education concerning the human body.

As defined in the bill, “Medically accurate” information means information that is supported by the weight of research conducted in compliance with accepted scientific methods; and recognized as accurate and objective by leading professional organizations and agencies with relevant expertise in the medical field to which the information relates. The problem, of course, is that there is nothing in here that tells the kids that STDs are righteous punishment from the Almighty for their wicked ways. Perhaps it can be amended in committee.

Nobody’s Right If Everybody’s Wrong

by 3 Comments

Norm Cox has an entry entitled “Battle Lines,” describing the past week in state government. Gov. Daniels treated us to some tough talk and some trashing on neighboring states, but not much talk about jobs. He said that these tough economic conditions were the time to separate the “winners from the whiners.” The Democrats hit back bringing a parade of Indiana workers who couldn’t get any satisfaction from the Governor’s Department of Workforce Development which has seemingly taken the insurance industry’s “it’s a feature, not a bug” view of impenetrable claims bureaucracy. Following a contentious hearing with Indiana Department of Transportation Commissioner, Karl Browning, Democrats in the House Roads and Transportation Committee (one of my old committees) also passed a bill which significantly rearranges the allocation of transportation funds — stripping some control from INDOT and giving it to local government. (More here.)