Michael Hicks, writing for Howey Politics, has an excellent column responding to efforts in the General Assembly to micromanage Indianapolis government. Some of the legislation applies to local government generally, but the real focus seems to be Indianapolis and the Indy metro area. The upshot is that the General Assembly wants to do this because state government is controlled by Republicans whereas the Republican Party, by and large, can’t win elections in Marion County anymore. Local control goes out the window when the wrong people are in control locally and/or those people are making the wrong policy decisions.

With respect to the impact of those policy decisions, Hicks points out a lot of metrics showing that Indianapolis and its metro area are doing much better than the rest of the state. The big city has created more and better jobs, resulting in more economic output. Among other things, “each year residents of Marion County send, on net, a bit more than $500 per person in tax revenues to residents of the rest of the state.” And people are voting with their feet — in the last twenty years, “a full 85% of the state’s population growth happened within the Indianapolis metro area.”

Obviously, I recommend that you go read the column.

HB 1540, introduced by Rep. Nisly, seems to open up brave new markets for uninspected roadside van meat. It creates something called “a custom exempt slaughter establishment” (which somehow puts me in mind of Krusty Partially Gelatinated Non-Dairy Gum-Based Beverages). (Actually, I can’t see where it actually defines the term and a quick search of the Indiana Code didn’t turn up the phrase.) I’m not going to spend a lot of time researching this one, so take my review with a grain of salt. Anyway, it allows meat slaughtered at a “custom exempt slaughter establishment” to be sold at, among other places, “a roadside stand” without any kind of inspection. A roadside stand is anyplace where an individual farmer sells directly to customers.

It seems to be intended for small producers, purporting to impose limits of 20,000 poultry, 100 hogs, 50 cattle, and 500 sheep & goats.

Welcome to the Jungle.

Sen. Young has introduced SB 200 concerning “non-compliant” prosecuting attorneys. I expect this arises out of the Marion County Prosecutor’s determination that he wasn’t going to waste resources pursuing marijuana crimes involving amounts under an ounce. It creates a process whereby new Attorney General, Todd Rokita, could second guess that determination and ask the Supreme Court to appoint a trial court judge outside of the relevant county to consider whether to, in turn, appoint a special prosecutor who is a senior prosecuctor or prosecutor from outside of the county to seek out marijuana convictions or whatever the class of crimes not being enforced by the elected prosecutor may be.

The cherry on top is that the County whose authority is being usurped has to pay for the honor of getting a special prosecutor. Normally, the State pays prosecutor salaries.

Sen. Tomes has introduced SB 34 which seems mostly to be a way for him to express his unhappiness with the Black Lives Matter protests this summer. It provides that the State and local unites of government may not hire and must fire someone convicted of rioting. “Rioting” is already on the books and is defined as, “A person who, being a member of an unlawful assembly, recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally engages in tumultuous conduct.” “Unlawful assembly” is currently defined as, “an assembly of five (5) or more persons whose common object is to commit an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means.” And, “tumultuous conduct” is defined as “conduct that results in, or is likely to result in, serious bodily injury to a person or substantial damage to property.”

SB 34 also provides that state and local government can’t provide a “state or local benefit” to someone who has been convicted of rioting. Such benefits are defined pretty broadly to include most public spending directed to an individual. However, the prohibition does not extend to, among other things, emergency medical treatment, assistance with vaccine, and short-term noncash emergency relief.

The normal protection given to law enforcement against civil liability for enforcing or failing to enforce a law would not extend to “failure to enforce a law in connection with an unlawful assembly” if such failure rose to the level of gross negligence. So, that would give law enforcement incentive to prioritize breaking up assemblies “of five or more people whose common object is to commit an unlawful act” since people who were harmed or had property damaged as a result of the assembly could look to local government to compensate them for the damage caused by the people assembling. Property used by a person to finance or facilitate a crime committed while the person was part of an unlawful assembly could be seized under the civil forfeiture statute. Someone charged with unlawful assembly could not be released on bail by the Sheriff according to a bail schedule. Rather, the statute would require a bail determination in court for such charges.

Finally, it prohibits a unit of local government from “defunding law enforcement” unless the reduction in funds can be shown to be a function of a decline in revenue for the unit, a decline in the crime rate, or the availability of other sources of funding. There’s a rebuttable presumption that defunding has happened if the funding available to the law enforcement agency has declined by 5%. If a court determines that defunding has happened, it is to order that funding be restored in the amount provided in the last fiscal year plus an additional amount to cover inflation.

The legislation would enhance penalties for the crimes of criminal mischief, obstruction of traffic, rioting, and/or disorderly conduct if committed in connection with unlawful assembly.

Rep. Dvorak has proposed House Joint Resolution 3 which would add language to the state constitution creating an “Indiana Permanent Fund” which would ultimately be used to pay annual dividends to Indiana citizens.

The way it’s structured, any year in which the State realized a budget surplus, half of that surplus would be placed in the Permanent Fund. (The state would have the discretion to put such additional money in there as it saw fit.) The principal of the fund would be invested in income producing investments designated by law. For the first twenty years, the fund would simply be allowed to grow. After that, an increasing percentage of the income earned on the principal could be distributed to eligible recipients. In years 20-40, it would be up to 5%; years 41-60 it would be up to 10%; years 61-80 it would be up to 15%; and in years 81-100 it would be up to 20%. After a century, the amount would jump and be up to 95%. (Kind of the big thinking about our tricentennial I mentioned a few years ago!)  To be an eligible recipient, a person “must have voted in the most 27 recent general election in which the person was eligible to vote 28 occurring before the payment of the dividend.”

My initial impulse is to like the idea. But I doubt I’ve really wrapped my head around the collateral consequences of this sort of program. By locking up the surplus, the State wouldn’t have as much flexibility in dealing with short term problems. Maybe it would discourage saving because lawmakers wouldn’t have as much of a slush fund for their short term priorities? Obviously long term planning is a hard sell. None of us will be around in a century, and five percent in 20 years isn’t a huge carrot. On the other hand, we’re going to need to figure out some way of funding people’s needs that doesn’t necessarily rely on having a job, because the robots are coming. That’s great for the people who own the robots, but the people whose livelihoods are displaced by automation still need to live; preferably good lives.

Rep. Jackson has introduced HB 1128 concerning mental health assessment of law enforcement officers. It requires the law enforcement training board to come up with procedures for mental health assessments. It sets out a number of factors that should be considered with the assessments. Among them are things like frequency of personnel complaints against the officer, an abrupt change in behavior, irrational verbal conduct, suicidal statements, unexplained fatigue or hyperactivity, sudden weight gain or loss, a pattern of conduct suggesting an inability to defuse or a desire to aggravate, and dramatic negative changes in personal hygiene.

I can’t quite figure out if the assessments are limited to the following situations, the procedures are to be designed for assessments after “a return from military deployment, an exposure to a bloodborne pathogen, or the discharge of any firearm by a law enforcement officer during the course of a use of force incident.” The discharge of a firearm during a use of force incident doesn’t surprise me, but the military deployment and bloodborne pathogen scenarios strike me as oddly specific. Not that I can’t see the need after these situations, but it’s one of those underinclusive/overinclusive thing: lots of other scenarios where you’d probably want to conduct assessments and lots of people returning from military deployments or subject to bloodborne pathogens who don’t particularly need assessments. I don’t have any particular background here, so maybe there is something specific that makes these three scenarios the triple crown.

The legislation also provides for the assessments to be confidential, limits the purposes for which assessments may be used, and requires reasonable accommodations where the person is deemed not psychologically fit for duty.