The Indy Star has an article entitled Technology report for Indiana is grim.

Unveiled this morning at the 8th Indiana Technology Summit in Indianapolis, the annual Indiana Technology Profile shows the state fell behind or stayed the same against other states in 14 of 23 measurements, such as patents gained per worker and employment in high-tech services.

The report is available here. (pdf) We’re not only falling behind the usual suspects like California, Massachusetts, and Virginia, but also states like Idaho and South Dakota.

Our population has a low percentage with a bachelor’s degree or better, not enough scientists or technology workers, and our digital infrastructure is mediocre. But, hey, I guess Hoosiers are still qualified to shovel shit at high density feed lots.

In a story entitled, Senior state senator to retire, the Indy Star is reporting that Senator Harrison will not seek reelection. He has been in the Senate since 1966 and was the majority leader from 1979 to 2004. He was one-fourth of the Senate powerhouses consisting of Senators Garton, Mills, Harrison, and Borst. Mills retired a few years back, Borst was defeated in the 2004 primaries, and now Harrison is going. I don’t know if Senator Garton has announced any plans for the future, but after a solid two decades of the Senate being controlled by those four, the landscape is apparently changing.

The article mentions that Senator Harrison’s labor committee is where pro-labor bills from the House Democrats went to die. The article also reports

Former Republican Sen. Richard Thompson of North Salem, which is now included in Harrison’s district, already had announced that he would run for the seat next year. Republican Rep. Tim Brown of Crawfordsville also is considering a run, but said today he had not made a final decision.

Personally, my primary experience with Senator Harrison had to do with his opposition to the proposal to “insource” printing operations from an outside vendor to Legislative Services employees. I posted about the project and Senator Harrison’s opposition. The project has resulted in a two-thirds reduction in legislative printing appropriations. As of 2001, the savings were $300,000 from the previous year. I like to keep that experience in mind as an example that outsourcing is not at all guaranteed to save taxpayers money.

According to this article, Bloomington South has banned students from wearing the Confederate Battle Flag on clothing, backpacks, etc. Apparently the symbol had caused disruptions in school. The Confederate flag typically causes problems because of the racial baggage it carries. To me, however, it simply represents treason committed against the United States of America.

The Indianapolis Star has an update on the ICLU’s challenge to sectarian prayer in the House Chambers as part of official business of the Indiana House of Representatives. A trial was held in front of Judge David Hamilton.

Speaker Bosma’s attorney acknowledged that a line existed that could be crossed, but apparently refused to attempt to articulate where that line might be. Bosma himself had this to say:

“It’s not a revival house, and if there was a call to come forward to the altar of the speaker’s rostrum, I’m sure that would be over the line,” he said.

My previous entry lists some of the specific instances where the ICLU feels the line was crossed. The most notable was on April 5, the ICLU says, when the Rev. Clarence Brown of Second Baptist Church, of Bedford, encouraged lawmakers to stand and clap as he sang “Just a Little Walk with Jesus.”

While I disagree with his opinion that Daylight Saving Time was necessary, I like this article by Matt Tully. (Found via TDW.)

Daylight-saving time is Gov. Mitch Daniels’ own personal Harriet Miers.
A heavy and politically painful weight pulling him down, a target drawing flak from all directions.

But while President Bush released his Supreme Court albatross Thursday morning, Daniels can’t, and won’t, back away from his own mess of an issue.

He’s gone too far. So even as the federal government mucked things up this week, revealing senseless preliminary plans for time zones across Indiana, Daniels stood by his tick-tocking Harriet Miers.

. . .

For now, however, it’s got to be a headache of the pounding sort. This Mount Everest of Indiana issues never really goes away. It keeps finding new ways to irritate and aggravate.
And it’s back, with a federal plan that puts bordering counties with integrated economies in different time zones. Even Daniels — Gov. Time — called a part of the feds’ plan “unworkable.”

Tully points out that, under the preliminary federal plan, 3 of the state’s 5 largest cities (Evansville, Gary, and South Bend) will be on Central Time while the other two will be on eastern time. (Indianapolis and Fort Wayne.)

Thanks to Representative Dvorak for his update on the Commission on Courts’ latest meeting and, in particular, the garnishee defendant issue. The short version of that issue is that the General Assembly passed a fee increase for small claims and plenary civil cases which requires an additional $10 for each additional defendant. So, a small claims case with one defendant is $70, two defendants is $80, etc. The question is whether a “garnishee defendant” (usually an employer named after judgment is entered for the purpose of garnishing the wages of the original defendant) is a defendant for which a $10 fee must be paid before being added to the suit.

According to Rep. Dvorak, the Attorney General has provided a preliminary opinion that concludes:

Based on the garnishee defendant’s role as a “defendant” outside of the original action, the garnishee defendant is named as the holder of wages or funds for the defendant that are subject to claims of the plaintiff. Our preliminary research would indicate that the “garnishee defendant” is not a “judgment defendant” to the original action and therefore the fees assessed to such defendants would not apply to the garnishee.

Rep. Dvorak has a good post on the latest meeting of the Regulatory Flexibility Committee. That immediately drew my interest since I had the opportunity to serve as staff counsel for that august body back in 1998 or so. Back then, and I presume today, it was made up of the members of the House and Senate Commerce Committees.

I’m not sure it was well served by me back then. At the time, the big question on the table was whether and how to “deregulate” the electric industry. (I put the deregulate in “scare quotes” because there were still all kinds of regulations in mind. I thought of it as “reregulation”. The usual alternative was “restructuring”.) I gave myself a crash course in electric industry issues. But, I was 2 years out of law school, and had no experience with regulatory issues generally or electric issues specifically. So, my usefulness was necessarily limited. I tracked down the speakers suggested by the chairman and was able to explain the difference between “transmission” and “distribution” as it pertains to electricity. At the end of the day, the Committee and the legislature generally got the right result on the issue. They left well enough alone. Indiana had comparatively low electric prices. They didn’t do anything experimental and, consequently, we haven’t experienced any California-style electric gougings. And, I do specifically recall Enron’s lobbyist being at the hearings. So don’t think it couldn’t have happened here. With that digression, I feel like Grampa Simpson. (“We wore onions on our belts, which was the style at the time . . .”) Then again, I’m only up right now because my 2.5 month old daughter decided 5 a.m. was a really great time to be *wide* awake. So, I suspect sleep deprivation on my part may play a part in this post.

Anyway, back to Representative Dvorak. He reports that the issue on the table for RegFlex in this interim was to decide “consider recommending proposed legislation concerning telecommunications reform.” No consensus on the issue was reached. He suggests that it might be more helpful for legislators to receive an education on the latest technological breakthroughs — and even education on the basics of some of the more common technology. He endorsed the sentiment

Too often the discussion of telecommunications policy turns on phrases like “overregulation,” and “investment incentives.” These are critical issues, to be sure, but like the term “last mile,” such phrases frame the issues in network-centric terms. As more and more intelligence migrates to the edge of the network, users of the network need to be part of the policy debate. Let’s put the user back into the picture.

That paragraph is a reminder that the frame of the debate often determines the outcome. One of my first exposures to that premise, particularly with respect to telecommunications, was from Indiana University Communications Professor, Harmeet Sawhney, author of (among other things), Information Superhighway: Metaphors as Midwives. I couldn’t find the article online, but in my search stumbled across one of his course descriptions at IU:

In this seminar we will examine the rise of the networked society and the physical infrastructure that undergirds it. We will start by discussing the social, economic, and cultural forces that set into motion the movement towards the networked society. We will then analyze how large-scale networks, the physical infrastructure of a networked society, are conceptualized and created. How metaphors shape our thoughts? How are investment decisions made when there is so much uncertainty about future demand? Why are the hierarchical networks getting transformed into flatter structures? After examining the infrastructure development process, we will discuss the new modes of
social organization made possible by large-scale networks. Why are we seeing the advent of networked organizations and other networked configurations? How are these configurations different from the earlier ones? What is their impact on our everyday lives?

It’s probably too much to ask that all legislators involved in telecommunications policy making take a semester-long course with Professor Sawhney. But I think the state would be well served if they could. But, like I said, sleep deprivation is a factor here.

I haven’t had time to properly digest it, but Nuvo has an article entitled Puritan Politics: Reforming Indiana’s sex, family and marriage laws with faith-based legislation. (Thanks to Lawgeekgurl for the reference over at Torpor Indy.)

My quick review suggests that the article is worth reading. It covers some of the anti-homosexual and anti-sex education efforts by the evangelical crowd, including, unsurprisingly, Senator Miller’s recent efforts at keeping reproductive assistance away from singles and other non-traditional families.

Those of you who are more diligent about environmental issues than am I might find Representative Dvorak’s post on the first meeting of the Environmental Crimes Task Force of interest. The task force is led by Senator Kenley and apparently on the agenda is consideration of IC 13-30-6-1.

The law now simply allows a D felony to be charged for any intentional, knowing, or reckless violation of any Indiana environmental law. The concern is that the statute is so overly broad that it could be found unconstitutional under the void for vagueness doctrine, the rule of lenity, and the fair notice requirement of due process.

Anyway, head on over if it’s of interest. The Representative has good links to code cites and case law.

Earlier in the week, the Interim Study Committee on Motor Vehicle Issues met and ended up with recommendations that BMV branches that provide photo IDs be open the day before and the day of an election and also recommendations with respect to notice and hearings concerning BMV branch closures.

Taking a look at the minutes of the October 12, 2005 meeting (PDF), there were some interesting discussions about whether Indiana should consider requiring the Governor’s appointees to be confirmed by the Senate. It didn’t amount to anything, and obviously the discussion is taking place in this particular committee because BMV head Joel Silverman has made people mad. The relevant part of the minutes:

The Chair summarized the Committee’s work and briefly discussed the concept of the separation of powers. The Chair then called for comments from Committee members. The Committee next engaged in a discussion on the confirmation of agency heads. This idea was brought to the Committee by Senator Rogers. She told the Committee that only Nevada and Indiana do not have some type of confirmation process for executive branch appointments.

Senator Rogers distributed Exhibit 1, addressing the confirmation process in surrounding states. Representative Brown inquired about including the House in the confirmation process. Representative Turner asked if this concept had been entertained in a Democrat administration. Senator Rogers replied that she was not aware of it.

Commenting further, Representative Turner wondered how this would work with Republican control of the Senate and a Democrat (sic) administration. He also questioned how this concept would work, given that Indiana has a part-time legislature if there were intervening vacancies and at the beginning of a new administration. Senator Craycraft commented that potential nominees could be appointed during the interim period of the General Assembly. Senator Dillon briefly discussed this issue. Senator Steele commented that it would lengthen legislative sessions and, therefore, cost more money. Representative Brown commented that in similar states, this concept takes up Senate time, which is a good thing.