Updating this previous post on HB 1219 on Charter School Conversion, Twist the Barrel has a related post entitled Opposing ALEC’s Parent Trigger in Indiana.

Although Rep. Rhonda Rhoads’ House Bill 1219 has her name on it, the Parent Trigger bill was written and supported by the Heartland Institute and ALEC, the anti-public education, anti-union, anti-regulation, Koch brothers funded group also behind the Right-to-Work bill in Indiana.
. . .
“It appears that some voices around the country are discussing the Parent Trigger as though it had been used successfully at schools throughout California. But that’s not true. The Parent Trigger has never succeeded at any school in California. There have been two known attempts to use it; both have failed. And Parent Revolution, the billionaire-funded Astroturf (fake grassroots) organization that created the Parent Trigger, appears to have basically abandoned it as a strategy.”

See also, Douglas Storm’s post “The Parent Trigger Trap.” Among other things, he suggests that, “the only thing that will be achieved is community dissolution.”

Rep. Friend’s 1089 would require the Indiana Department of Education to develop a program that connects local farms with schools “to provide children with locally produced fresh fruits and vegetables, dairy products, and other nutritious, locally produced foods for school breakfast, lunch, and snack programs.”

The plan is required to include:

#Promotion of farm to school programs and ways to encourage schools to purchase food produced in Indiana and to provide nutritional and agricultural education, including farm visits, cooking demonstrations, and composting and gardening at schools.

#Identification of impediments to providing locally produced foods in school programs and methods to reduce or eliminate those impediments.

#Promotion of communication between local farmers and schools and of sales of food from local farmers to schools.

#Training and technical assistance for school food service personnel and managers, farmers, and food distributors and processors concerning farm to school programs and food safety and procurement.

#Promotion of farm to school programs through a public education campaign. The fiscal impact of each component of the farm to school plan, if any.

With regard to components having a fiscal impact that can’t be funded in other ways, the Department is directed to ask the General Assembly for an appropriation for fiscal years 2013 and 2014.

I certainly don’t mind the notion of kids getting fresh produce, and it sounds like a good deal for local farmers which is also good. I wonder if there are any problems with federal law preempting this kind of thing under the Commerce Clause or in exchange for participating in food stamp programs or something.

Rep. McMillin’s HB 1034 regarding historic cemeteries passed out of the House Committee on Local Government 8 – 0. It expands the definition to include, not just those established before 1875 (and having pioneer leaders or American war veterans,) but also those in which a Civil War veteran is buried.

This, in effect, expands the cemeteries that come under IC 23-14-67. Under that chapter, if one of these cemeteries exists, lacks funds and is showing signs of neglect, the county commissioners can create a county cemetery commission which can, in turn, request a tax levy of up to $0.50 per $100 of assessed valuation in the county for the purpose of restoring and maintaining one of these historic cemeteries.

Erik Loomis at Lawyers Guns & Money brings us this blast from Indiana’s Right To Work past (it was later repealed), a 1958 letter from a Nashville, IN wife of a carpenter to International Woodworker

“I pooh-poohed when the right-to-work was first called a mankiiller. But it is. The man I love is being killed by it. He is a carpenter, strong, capable, hard-working, able to do three men’s work, which he does. Thereby, he keeps his job, luckier than most carpenters these days.

“He retains his job by doing man-killing work, but the rest of the crew is fired each Friday. A fresh group is brought in on Monday. There is no longer a union steward whose job it used to be to see that the company provided fresh drinking water, toilet facilities, a place to change and keep dry clothes, safety precautions, etc.

“My man comes home each day thirsty, soaking wet and heartsick because eager, hard-working family men on the job are being laid off when they can’t double or triple their output. This is not an isolated case.

“I am a school teacher. I address this to other teachers, office workers, business people, and others who know first hand what the “[Governor] Handley law” really is–a right-to-work-a-man-to-death law. I plead for its repeal.”

Indiana passed the law in 1957, being the only industrial state to adopt such legislation, then repealed it again in 1965. Sometimes we’re very much like a Southern state without the warm climate.

HB 1295 would provide sales tax exemptions to farmers for components of drainage systems or for equipment used to install, repair, or maintain farm drainage systems; “farm drainage systems” being “a system of drainage tubing, drainage tiles, and related control systems designed to facilitate the drainage of agricultural land.”

Rep. Rhoads’ HB 1219 concerning conversion of regular public schools to charter schools has been reported out of the House Education committee. It creates a procedure whereby, if parents of 51% of current students sign a petition requesting a conversion to a charter school. The language was confusing to me. At first, I thought it was saying the conversion had to take place “not later than 90 days from the first signature.” But, upon re-reading, I guess it means that the last signature has to be gathered within 90 days of the first.

The statute repeals the similar IC 20-24-11. The main difference seems to be that, under current law, the signatures have to be gathered, the governing body agrees, and the school is underperforming. Under the proposed law, any one of those things might trigger a charter school conversion. I’m frankly out of my depth on this one, so I can’t say whether it’s a good idea or bad one.

Representatives Knollman and White have introduced HB 1370
concerning medicinal marijuana. It requires the executive board of the state department of health to enact procedures for people to be medicinal marijuana cardholders. It exempts the cardholders and medicinal marijuana dispensaries from marijuana criminal laws.

An individual would receive from the state department of health a medicinal marijuana card if the department approved their application. The application would have to include a verification from their physician that they had a “debilitating medical condition,” defined by the statute as: (1) cancer; (2) glaucoma;(3) positive status for human immunodeficiency virus;(4) acquired immune deficiency syndrome;(5) hepatitis C; (6) amyotrophic lateral sclerosis;(7) Crohn’s disease; (8) Alzheimer’s disease; (9) nail patella;(10) multiple sclerosis; (11) injury or disease to the spinal cord, spinal column, or vertebra; (12) myelomalacia; (13) celiac disease; (14) sickle cell anemia; (15) a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or the treatment for a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition that produces:(A) cachexia or wasting syndrome;(B) severe or chronic pain; (C) severe or chronic nausea;(D) seizures, including seizures that are characteristic of epilepsy; or(E) severe or persistent muscle spasms; or (16) any other disease, condition, or symptom that the state department of health has determined by its rulemaking authority under IC 4-22-2 to be a debilitating medical condition.

I certainly don’t disapprove of using marijuana for medicinal purposes for those conditions where it helps. But, I don’t think the resources and power of the criminal apparatus are properly used on people whose only offense against society is smoking marijuana. But, be that as it may, I also don’t want medicinal marijuana being used as a fig leaf for recreational marijuana use. I think that would undermine respect for the criminal law and for the medical field.

Rep. Delaney has introduced HB 1234 concerning tort claim caps. Under the proposed legislation, tort claim awards against the state and political subdivisions would be $1.3 million per person (up from $700k) and $22 million per event (up from $5 million.)

This is clearly a reaction to the State Fair weather disaster that caused more than $5 million in damages and, therefore, some folks stand not to be compensated for losses they suffered. Of course, that’s a risk we all face from getting harmed by someone or something without deep pockets. I wonder if the caps ought to somehow be a function of the tax base of the political subdivision — so much per taxpayer maybe. The State is obviously better able to sustain a $22 million burden than, say, the Town of Dayton. Some thought should also probably be given to the type of liability — higher limits for easily insured, discretionary activities, lower limits for harder-to-insure, mandatory activities (county jails are of particular interest to me).

Rep. Wesco has introduced HB 1137 which would require a court to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing party where the court grants a motion to dismiss based on the claim “not having a basis in law or fact.”

Current law permits (rather than requires) an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party where the claim or defense of the other party was “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.” I guess I don’t know what the statute means by “not having a basis in law or fact.” If this is meant to award fees where the dismissal is based on Trial Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; they should say so. But, I can’t tell if that’s what the statute is getting at or not; which would be a problem if, say, I were a judge being asked to implement it.