SB 105, introduced by Sen. Charbonneau addresses the adjustment of debt by a political subdivision – generally allowing the distressed unit appeal board (“board”) to arrange for the governing of the political subdivisions affairs to get it out of debt, including through bankruptcy.

First, the bill changes the definition of an “economically distressed subdivision” from one that will have its property tax collection reduced by at least 5% to one that is designated as such by the board. Next, it reduces the board to a three member board consisting of the the director of the office of management and budget, the commissioner of the department of local government finance, and the state examiner of the state board of accounts. Significantly, I think, it eliminates members from political subdivisions, currently: one nominated by the Indiana Association of Cities & Towns, one nominated by the Association of Indiana Counties, and one nominated by the Indiana Association of School Superintendents. It also gets rid of the member appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

In addition to the fiscal body (as is the case currently) it allows the political subdivision’s executive or even its creditors (if they hold a large enough stake) to petition for the economically distressed designation. It eliminates the requirement that a petition to the board have a proposed plan to get the subdivision out of trouble. The board can impose the designation if the subdivision satisfies one or more of a list of indicators of troubled finances. (I do take exception to the one that says “The political subdivision has failed to make required payments to judgment creditors for thirty (30) days beyond the date of the recording of the judgment.” – I can see where you thought you’d win a case, get tagged with a big, unbudgeted judgment, and it takes more than 30 days to arrange the financing.) But, generally, the list consists of things that shouldn’t happen if the unit is functioning reasonably well: missing payroll, defaulting on bond payments, etc.

Once the designation is applied, the board appoints an emergency manager for the political subdivision that serves at the pleasure of the board. The manager is given enormous power, except the power to raise taxes. Otherwise, he or she is given the authority and responsibilities of both the executive and the fiscal body of the political subdivision concerning the adoption, amendment, and enforcement of ordinances and resolutions. He or she can unilaterally reduce salaries of employees, renegotiate union contracts, and generally seems to have unbridled power over the subdivision’s finances. He or she can also recommend to the board that the subdivision petition for Chapter 9 Bankruptcy Protection.

To me, this thing doesn’t at all strike the right balances. You have a small group of state officials – without anything in the way of input from local officials, even as consultants – who can take over a political subdivision without much second guessing. Then, their appointee can come in and wreck the joint with powers, individually, that seem to exceed those that were available in the aggregate to the people actually elected by the citizens of that subdivision.

Thinking of the damage some distant state bureaucrats could do to the good stuff we have going in Tippecanoe County gives me the willies. Fortunately, for the county – and, for the most part the other subdivisions – we’ve had some excellent officials who have done a good job meeting budgets; so maybe we’re not in too much danger. But, still – from my neck of the woods, the medicine seems too strong for the ailment.

Sen. Leising has introduced SB 84 which makes police crash reports confidential for 90 days except under certain circumstances – mostly people with direct involvement with the crash or paying for it.

The intent of the bill is pretty clearly to prevent the current practice where personal injury attorneys just order crash reports in bulk and send solicitations to just about everyone. But the bill is probably unworkable and more trouble than it’s worth.

I appreciate the intent though. This summer moving across town from my old house to my current house, had a very minor fender bender. I had a small pain in my neck which I mentioned to the investigating officer just because, if it did turn into something more significant, I didn’t want some defense attorney or insurance adjuster telling me I hadn’t mentioned anything at the time of the accident. My first mail at the new house consisted of about five solicitations from personal injury attorneys. Classy.

SB 95 creates an exception to the general rule that a towing company has a possessory lien in a vehicle until it gets paid for the tow.

In the case of non-consensual police ordered tows where an insurance company acknowledges responsibility for reasonable and customary charges for the tow, it requires the towing company to release the vehicle unless the towing company meets a number of requirements – proper licensure, proper insurance, and probably most importantly, registering a schedule of its fees with the local police post.

I think this is designed to address the situation where the towing company holds the vehicle and tries to gouge the insurance company. When the insurer won’t pay because the fees are out of line, nobody can get the vehicle away from the towing company which, in turn, allows the storage fees to continue accruing and compounds the problem.

The purpose of the possessory lien is to make sure the towing company gets paid. Either the owner comes up with the money or they have the vehicle as collateral. Where an insurance company acknowledges responsibility, the need for such a lien is greatly diminished. They can fight about what constitutes a “reasonable and customary” charge – in court if necessary – and once that number is settled, the insurer is going to have the wherewithal to pay it.

Sen. Randolph has introduced SB 131, a proposed exception concerning oil refineries to the Bring Your Guns to Work legislation passed last year. If this passes, I would anticipate more industries trying to come up with rationales for why having firearms on their property is not a good idea.

Sen. Kruse’s SB 119 concerning ‘covenant marriage’ is one of those evergreen (pdf – from 1998) bills that seems to get introduced over and over again. It would be a kind of super duper marriage. You have to pinky swear (I might be making that up) that the marriage is for ever, take 8 hours of premarital counseling, and only get a divorce when things are really awful. (Instead of those casual marriages I guess we have right now).

Here is one part of the bill I really like. The people getting married have to sign a statement that says, in part:

We have chosen each other carefully and disclosed to one another everything that could adversely affect the decision to enter into this marriage.

Now, really, how can a new couple honestly make such a representation? You can’t possibly know everything about yourself that will drive your spouse nuts in 20 years. Sure, there is the obvious stuff, but I’m reminded of Danny DeVito’s line in Ruthless People: “I hate the way she licks stamps!”

SB 50, introduced by Sen. Leising is one of those anti-abortion measures that makes me think the proponent doesn’t actually have a serious moral position against abortion but, rather, is just playing some kind of game with it.

This bill would require a pregnant woman seeking an abortion to obtain a fetal ultrasound imaging at least 18 hours prior to the abortion, to listen to the heart beat if audible, and view and receive a copy of the imaging. And, of course, foot the bill for this mandate herself.

The only justification for this proposed government micromanagement of a woman’s medical decisions is the notion that abortion involves the termination of a human life. But, if you do subscribe to the notion that a fetus is a human life, fully entitled to the moral rights of other humans, then this legislation is monstrous. Can you imagine the outrage if Sen. Leising proposed legislation that required, before murdering a child between the ages of 6 and 10 years old, the murderer watched film and listened to audio of his or her victim at least 18 hours in advance? It’s like a mandatory snuff film.

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the proponents of this sort of thing don’t regard fetal life as fully human. In which case, government should stay out of our medical decisions.

Rep. Reske has introduced HB 1039 which adds nanotechnology (the study of manipulating matter on an atomic and molecular scale) as an appropriate subject of grants and loans from the twenty-first century research and technology fund. It also exempts nanotechnology equipment from personal property taxes.

HB 1043, introduced by Rep. Torr, seeks to restrict an employer’s ability to negotiate employment contracts through so-called “right to work” legislation. It subjects an employer to criminal penalties and civil suits if it seeks to require payment of union dues as a condition of employment – I believe this is traditionally known as a union shop clause.

Specifically, an employer may not require an individual to become or remain a member of a labor organization; pay dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind or amount to a labor organization; or pay an amount to a charity or third party that is equivalent to or a pro rata part of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges regularly required of members of a labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment.

I’ve never been part of a union and have mixed feelings about them, but I don’t think this kind of legislation will do anything to help alleviate the downward pressure on wages that has been afflicting the middle class for the better part of the last 30 years.

Rep. Cheatam has introduced HB 1040 which would prohibit a court from modifying a parent’s support obligation due to a reduction in income that occurs because of the parent’s incarceration. I understand the motivation – you don’t want to “reward” a guy for going to jail – but this is ill advised.

In most situations involving incarceration, you probably have a guy who was living close to the financial edge anyway and is otherwise somewhat marginal as a member of society. So, he does his time, and, meanwhile, the court’s support order continues to accrue arrearages unabated. It’s pretty easy for someone to rack up many thousands of dollars in arrearages which are owed on top of the person’s ongoing support obligations. I am sympathetic to the “sucks for him, but it shouldn’t be the kid’s problem” line of thinking. But, as I know all too well, it’s tough to get blood out of a turnip. If you put a guy too far down in the hole, eventually, he’s going to just say “screw it,” and walk away the best he can. To maintain steady payments, generally you need to give the person some hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel.