Representative Pierce has introduced HB 1179 concerning Yellowwood and Morgan-Monroe state forests. The bill specifies about 2,700 acres in Yellowwood/Morgan-Monroe State Forests, 2,500 acres in Jackson-Washington State Forest, and 2,000 acres in Clark State Forest and recites a legislative finding that they contain notable natural physical features, that pristine forest areas provide unique recreational and ecological benefits, and that these areas should be preserved for the future.

The bill then prohibits development in these areas in a manner that would permit motorized access, sale of timber, or commercial activity. The bill has been assigned to the House Committee on Natural Resources but has not yet, apparently, received a hearing.

Other sources have reported this at greater length, but for posterity on this blog, I’ll just note that HJR 3 / 6 and its “splainin” companion bill passed 9 – 3. The committee heard a great deal of testimony, but apparently the proponents who ultimately voted in favor of the measure did not ask many questions. As Mary Beth Schneider, formerly of the Star, pointed out, when proponents don’t ask questions, they know they have the votes.

And, of course, it should be no surprise that the votes were secure before the hearing. Forced with a choice between the schoolyard maxims of playing by the rules and “if at first you don’t succeed,” Speaker Bosma went with the latter, demonstrating that getting a prohibition on same sex marriages, civil unions, and other legal statuses substantially similar to marriage into the state constitution is of a high priority. After the black eye of not being able to get the votes in the House Judiciary Committee, he took the very unusual, but not unprecedented step of moving a bill amending the Constitution into the Elections committee. Which, in a sense, is appropriate. This legislation is a political act, not a sound legal approach to governing.

HB 1147 is a bill I am sure is going nowhere and probably raises separation of powers issues. But it would be generally favorable to most of my clients. The bill would make orders on summary judgment and motions to dismiss appealable orders if the amount in controversy is over $100,000. The court of appeals would have discretion to review such orders in matters involving less than $100,000.

Currently the way it works is that if you file a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment and the judge rules against you, you usually can’t appeal that ruling until the entire trial is over. So, for example, I recently had a case involving a personal trainer who had his client sign a liability waiver. The client got hurt while lifting weights and sued the trainer. I filed for summary judgment based on the liability waiver. The judge denied the motion without explanation, but presumably because he did not believe the language of the waiver was effective. I believe the judge was incorrect in that determination and think I could have gotten the Court of Appeals to see things my way. But I couldn’t go directly to the Court of Appeals. I had to go to a jury trial. Fortunately, we prevailed with the jury finding that the trainer wasn’t negligent anyway. We, therefore, never had to go to the Court of Appeals on the waiver question.

From the Court of Appeals’ perspective, that’s how things should work. They were spared a case, and we got a judgment for the defendant. But, my client had to spend a lot of money on litigation. The client and the insurance company had to put up with a lot of pressure to settle the case before we got to trial. And my client was entirely deprived of the value of that waiver.

On the other hand, plaintiffs with legitimate cases don’t want to have to jump through yet another hoop before they can get paid. The Court of Appeals certainly can’t be excited about the potential for all of those extra cases.

I like the idea of this bill, but I don’t see it going anywhere.

Rep. Jim Lucas has introduced HB 1018 which would prohibit state agencies, including state supported colleges and universities, from restricting the possession or transportation of firearms on state owned land or buildings. A person “adversely affected” by such a regulation can bring suit for triple damages and attorney’s fees.

This is similar to a measure passed with respect to political subdivisions a few years back, restricting their ability to regulate the possession of firearms on local government property.

Twitter is abuzz with the news that Speaker Bosma will move HJR 6 / 3 and its “partner” HB 1153 from the House Judiciary Committee to the House Elections Committee. This is a very unusual move for a bill that the Speaker claimed was not a priority. It is not unheard of for legislation to be moved to a more favorable panel if it is dying in another committee. But, certainly, this extra effort shows that the bill is of more importance to the Speaker than he had let on earlier. It also suggests that the bill did not have the votes to make it out of the judiciary committee.

The members of the House Elections committee are, on the Republican side: Reps. Smith (chair), Richardson (vice-chair), Rep. Woody Burton, Rep. Casey Cox, Rep. Hamm, Soliday, Sullivan, Thompson, and Wesco; and, on the Democratic side: Reps. Bartlett (ranking minority member), Battles, GiaQuinta, and Goodin. Per Eric Berman, the committee will hear another round of testimony tomorrow (January, 22, 2014 – time to be determined at 3:30 p.m. in the House Chambers.)

This thing is like a sick dog. It’s the wrong thing to do. Even for those who disagree on the morality of voting for this resolution, the fairly straight forward first sentence is redundant because of existing state law. The second sentence is impenetrable and ill-advised. HB 1153 the “explanatory” companion legislation acknowledges the problems with the proposed constitutional language but raises more questions than it answers.

The Speaker should have let the resolution die a merciful death in committee.

Update Niki Kelly, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has coverage of the development.

[Speaker Bosma] said he struggled with the decision over the weekend but had heard from a majority of the House Republican caucus – for and against the measure – that they wanted to vote on the bill on the House floor.

Bosma made a veiled reference to shadiness regarding the Judiciary Committee but would not embellish.

“I’m actually more concerned about the path by which the bill appeared to be being questionable in committee. It was a hard left turn that came kind of out of the blue,” he said. “I decided this was the right course to protect the institution.”

Shadiness in the Judiciary Committee? Now, I’m really curious.

Rep. Moed has introduced HB 1210 which would repay student loans for certain teachers.

Specifically, if the teacher graduated from his or her high school in the top 20% or in the top 20th percentile of the ACT or SAT exam; graduates from college with not less than a 3.5 GPA (on a 4.0 scale), and either teaches in a “critical shortage” geographic area or teaches science, technology, engineering, math, or special ed, then – at the end of the third consecutive year of teaching – the State would pay up to $9,000 of the teacher’s student loans.

The Department of Education would be in charge of determining “critical shortage geographic areas” which are defined as areas having or projected to have within the next twelve months a shortage of full-time licensed elementary or high school teachers. The teacher would have to apply to be part of the program within two years of graduating and would have to enter into an agreement promising to teach in one of the designated subject areas or geographic areas for three years. The teacher is permitted to teach at different schools if the eligible service is in consecutive years. No time will be credited prior to the teacher entering into the agreement. Only individuals who graduate from high school after June 30, 2014 would be eligible. With four years of college and the three year service requirement, it would be 2022 before the state would start paying out on this program.

This is reminiscent of the loan repayment program for doctors as an incentive to have them go work in an under-served geographic area. It’s probably easier for a teacher to pick up and move to a new school after serving his or her time than it is for a doctor to pick up and move his or her medical practice area. The subject areas are a bit “stickier” in that it’s less likely that, once trained in particular subject areas, a teacher would move on to other subject areas after the three years were up. Whether this bill moves forward probably speaks to that perennial question of whether we regard teachers as professionals or more like jumped up babysitters.

Senators Nugent and Tomes have introduced SB 301 which would prohibit political subdivisions from regulating the possession, carrying, transportation, sale, purchase, transfer, licensing, registration, or use of a knife or components used to make a knife.

A political subdivision would be prevented from regulating the manufacture of knives in a manner more restrictive than regulations in place for any other commercial good.

This bill paints with an awfully broad brush. It’s handy to have a knife around sometimes. And it’s annoying when you find yourself in a place with restrictions and you’ve forgotten to take a knife out of your pocket. I used to carry a small one on a keychain that, pre-9/11, caused me some slight delays at security screenings, but was never confiscated. Post-9/11, I just took it off my keychain, because I like the knife and knew that at some point I’d forget and it wouldn’t be allowed through security.

As for manufacture of knives, I have no idea what the potential issues might be or what political subdivisions are doing to regulate the manufacture. Under this law, however, if there was – say – some environmental concern about processing the metal involved with a knife, the political subdivision would not be entitled to address that concern because other commercial goods (without that metal) aren’t so regulated.

Senators Stoops and Randolph have introduced SB 214 which generally prohibits employers from using credit reports when making employment decisions about hiring, firing, and the like. Some exceptions are made, including exceptions for managerial positions, positions that involve access to money, positions with local government or the attorney general (oddly specific exception there).

I understand both sides here, I suppose. On the one hand, credit information generally was not intended to inform employment decisions and, to the extent the consumer/employee gave out the information, it probably wasn’t with future employment in mind. Furthermore, just because you have bad credit doesn’t necessarily make you a bad employee.

On the other hand, employers might well find that credit scores are a fairly reliable proxy for whether the employee will be responsible. If the employee can’t handle his or her own business, the employer might reasonably lack confidence in the employee’s ability to handle the employer’s business. And, while the proxy is not 100%, the labor pool is probably deep enough for the employer to miss a few good employees and still put together a good staff made up of employees with solid credit scores.

The state’s interest in this is that it puts potential employees in a vicious circle. Bad credit leads to few job prospects leads to worse credit leads to fewer job prospects leads to burden on the public safety net.

HB 1002 introduced by Reps. Brown and Soliday would allow the major moves trust fund to be used for every day highway needs instead of just major projects. According to the fiscal note, $200 million was transferred to the Major Moves Trust Fund on July 1, 2013 and another $200 million will be transferred in 2014. Under current law, that money may be used only for major highway enhancement projects. With this legislation, it could be used for ordinary maintenance.

Essentially, this looks like a transfer of cash from a capital fund to an operating fund. I’m not a financial planner, but my understanding is that you usually want to avoid such transfers because they have a tendency to mask structural deficits at the expense of future assets.

Rep. Washburne has introduced HB 1149 which would raise the speed limit for larger vehicles. Specifically, it would increase the Interstate speed limit for vehicles over 26,000 pounds would be 70 miles per hour. Currently the speed limit for such vehicles is 65 miles per hour.

I don’t know enough about the physics to know whether this is a good idea, a bad idea, or a wash. You have to think that heavier vehicles moving faster increases the risk or will at least increase the damage when accidents do happen. On the other hand, speed differentials are probably just as dangerous as trucks moving an extra ten miles an hour faster. Another consideration is probably fuel conservation. I imagine trucking companies would like to maximize fuel economy, and increasing speed limits may make it more difficult to do so.