I’m getting out over my skis a little bit here because I’m not familiar with the world of gold and silver transactions. But, HB 1043 looks like a tax exemption for gold bugs. It talks about gold and silver coins and bullion as specie legal tender and then exempts legal tender from personal property assessment and from the state gross sales tax. The fiscal note says that the exemptions already in place for certain coins and bullion is already pretty expensive for the State. (A Sales Tax Information Bulletin from the Indiana Dept. of Revenue talks about the exemptions already on the books.) This bill would cost the state more money.

 

Presumably this is going directly into the equivalent of a General Assembly trash can, but Rep. Errington has introduced HJR-1 which would institute a ballot initiative process in Indiana. I see chatter on political boards from time to time where citizens of Indiana see state constitutional amendments initiated by citizens in other states (lately abortion and marijuana seem to have been the big ones) and wonder why nobody does that here. It’s because our state’s constitution doesn’t allow such things where other state constitutions do.

I would be shocked to see it happen here. This constitutional amendment would allow citizens to propose statutes and constitutional amendments independent of the General Assembly. As written, such a proposal would require a petition with signatures from a number of Indiana voters equal to 2% of the voters who voted for Secretary of State in the last Secretary of State election. (That office is during a midterm election cycle, so the number would be lower than some other options — if my math is right, in 2022, there were about 1.85 million votes, meaning you’d need 37,000 signatures until the next election.)

If the new measure requires some kind of funding, it doesn’t go into effect until something happens (General Assembly or initiative) that appropriates the necessary funding. The governor can’t veto a measure and the General Assembly cannot repeal a statute passed by ballot initiative.

Sen. Byrne has introduced SB 129 which provides for reimbursement to a unit of government that pays for an officer’s basic training if the officer goes to work for a new employer. This seems to be a particularly pressing issue for smaller units of government to which basic training is a bigger percentage of the budget and which also likely can’t afford to pay the higher salaries. So, a new officer gets hired by a smaller city or county; gets some training on that unit’s dime; and, now having training and experience, goes to work for a bigger agency to make more money.

The bill lists the eligible expenses and then provides that, if an officer is hired by a new agency within one year of completing basic training, the new employer has to reimburse the old employer 100% of the eligible costs; 2/3 of the eligible costs between one and two years; and 1/3 of the eligible costs between two and three years. If the officer goes on to a third employer, there is language allowing the second employer to recoup some of what it paid to the first employer.

The downside of this is that it will tend to inhibit an officer’s ability to leave a bad situation and go to a better one or generally seek employment as he or she sees fit. (In some cases, however, it might enhance the employability if the officer is working for a unit of government that imposes more draconian reimbursement requirements.)

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

Sen. Leising has introduced SB 105 which would require the Indiana Department of Agriculture to update the Indiana Drainage Handbook. The most recent version was revised in 1999. The bill allows for the Department to hire the work out to a private contractor. The current version was prepared by the engineering firm of Christopher Burke & Associates. (Who, for what it’s worth, does a good job with respect to helping out the Tippecanoe County Drainage Board.) The private contractor would work under the oversight of the Department of Agriculture and an advisory board which would have to include certain members (e.g. a County Commissioner, a County Surveyor, a representative of DNR, an engineer, etc.)

One of the things I do for my job is advise our local drainage board. I can’t emphasize how important and overlooked drainage is. It’s one of those things that, when done poorly, can be utterly disastrous; and one of those things that, when done properly, can be almost invisible. Drainage doesn’t happen by accident. Among other things, it involves engineers with technical know-how and local bureaucracy designing and enforcing regulations. When your considering the pros and cons of a political philosophy, you could do worse than think about how effectively that philosophy would handle drainage matters.

Anyway, this strikes me as reasonable legislation. It’s been awhile since the handbook was updated.

Sen. Becker has introduced SB 130 which requires a court to either grant or deny an order for protection in domestic violence situations within a day of the request. Specifically, this seems to apply to situations where the petitioner is asking for an immediate, ex parte, order. (“Ex parte” means that one of the parties hasn’t been given a chance to present their side to the court yet. Usually, when something is permitted to happen ex parte, it’s done for a brief period of time until the court can conduct a fuller hearing on the matter.) The current statute is here.

Urgency is no doubt necessary in a lot of situations, so the intent of the bill is laudable. But I don’t see any consequences if the court doesn’t issue an order within the day. I suppose you could request the Supreme Court to issue a mandamus order, compelling the lower court to act; but that won’t exactly be speedy either. Maybe there aren’t any great consequences the legislature could impose. Our justice system is designed for many things; but being nimble isn’t one of them.