Mary Beth Schneider, writing for the Indianapolis Star has an article entitled Debate over time zones goes on. While otherwise excellent, it has a quote from Robert Johnson of the United States Dept. of Transportation that appears to be inaccurate.

The department did not adopt the process Daniels had suggested, Johnson said, “because we have a process.”

That process requires counties or local governments to make a specific request if they want to be moved to a time zone.

According to the USDOT’s time zone procedure a request by the Governor or the State Legislature is permissible for time zone requests involving any part of the state. So, it’s simply wrong to say that the process requires counties or local governments to make a specific request.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, Indiana’s Daylight Saving Time bill, SEA 127 required Governor Daniels to petition the USDOT for hearings on the appropriate time zone(s) for Indiana and to send a copy of the law, “along with any other necessary documentation prescribed by the United States Department of Transportation.” (emphasis added). The procedure prescribed by the USDOT requires that such a request be be accompanied by “detailed information supporting the requesting party’s contention that the requested change would serve the convenience of commerce.” Governor Daniels’ petition contained no such information.

The USDOT responded essentially by shifting the burden of data collection and submission assigned to the Governor by the legislature onto the shoulders of county officials. USDOT’s letter says

It is our normal practice, in implementing our responsibilities under the Uniform Time Act with respect to the location of time zone boundaries, to take action
on specific requests for change in the time zone boundaries for a particular jurisdiction from the elected officials of that jurisdiction. After receiving a request, we then determine whether it meets the minimum statutory criteria before issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to make a change.

Because of the inadequacies of Governor Daniels’ submission, the USDOT proposes to proceed by requiring “the appropriate local officials” (i.e. county commissioners) to notify USDOT of their intent to request a change in time zones, and provide the specific data and information by a date certain.

The principal standard for the USDOT’s determination is “convenience of commerce” which is defined broadly to include all of the impacts on a community caused by a change of time zone. Some examples are:
1. Where do communities get their supplies and ship their goods.
2. Where communities receive their news and television.
3. Where does the community get its bus and rail services.
4. The nearest airport.
5. What percentage of the community works outside the community and where do those people work.
6. If residents leave the community for school, recreation, healthcare, or religious worship, what standard of time is used in the places where these people go.

If the USDOT General Counsel receives sufficient information and determines that a change might serve the convenience of commerce, the General Counsel will issue a proposal and invite public comment.

While this procedure might make some sense, I do not believe it complies with the requirements of SEA 127. That law requires the Governor to submit the necessary information. If the bill had placed the burden on county commissioners, it very well may not have passed. Any change to the bill could have meant doom, given that the bill wouldn’t have passed at all if Rep. Troy Woodruff hadn’t broken his promise that he would *never* vote for Daylight Saving Time. And, as you may recall, a significant criticism of an earlier version of the bill was that it allowed for a patchwork, county-by-county, approach to Daylight Saving Time whereby county commissioners could unilaterally opt in or out of DST. Now we might well have another patchwork approach. Obviously the United States Dept. of Transportation has the final say in this matter. But a statewide approach is necessary here.

For example, Jasper County is currently on Central time. Let’s say that White County’s commissioners decide they want to remain on eastern time. But then, Cass County decides its in their best interest to petition for Central Time. That’s really nice that Cass County went through the effort, but practically speaking, they’re out of luck. White County has effectively vetoed any chance of Cass County getting to switch because the USDOT is not going to hopscotch White County, leaving it in Eastern Time because it didn’t submit a petition, and allow Cass County (one county further east), to join Central Time.

Governor Daniels’ press release on the issue shows that he may not have read Sec’y Mineta’s actual letter. Daniels says:

“I appreciate very much that Secretary Mineta has found a way to help this process move forward. I am especially grateful that the DOT will reach out to hundreds and hundreds of Hoosiers to solicit views on this important question, and then connect that feedback to the process that will give us hearings where necessary. We wanted an open and bottom up process and that is what we will have.”

Well, no. According to Secretary Mineta, he’s only going to listen to Hoosiers if their county commissioners decide they want to move to central time and then submit all of the “convenience of commerce” data listed above. In effect, Secretary Mineta’s response makes Governor Daniels’ petition a nullity. Under the time zone law, counties were already empowered to request a time zone change in the manner suggested by the USDOT. The process proposed by Secretary Mineta will be exactly the same as if SECTION 3 of SEA 127 had never existed.

If I were someone like Rep. Grubb who was really, really opposed to Daylight Saving Time, I’d be going to court and asking for an injunction until some resolution was had with respect to Gov. Daniels’ failure to submit all of the required data. (I’m not sure Gov. Daniels could have complied with the statute, but that’s the law they passed; so that’s the law they have to live with.)

Update 10:15 p.m. and thereafter

Mary Beth Schneider has an article for the Indy Star on Mineta’s letter here.

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has an AP story written by Mike Smith here.

Martin DiAgostino has an article for the South Bend Tribune here and a more recently updated article, here. This article includes a quote from Rep. Bauer stating,

According to House Minority Leader B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, the DOT process will insulate Daniels from making tough choices, despite his insistence on daylight-saving time for all.

“The governor clearly was in a pickle and they needed to figure a way out of it, and they did,” Bauer said. “They passed the clock back to the counties.”

The Indy Star has an editorial saying that proponents of Central Time have a right to feel slighted by the lack of hearings and wonder whose fault it is that the hearings won’t be held. They suggest the USDOT, the Governor, and/or the General Assembly. It’s not the USDOT which is following its established procedure. SEA 127 required the Governor to submit all the information required by the USDOT. He didn’t provide information on “convenience of commerce.” Instead he merely wrote a letter. I’d say the blame is on the Governor for not doing what the General Assembly told him to do. I’d also put the blame on the Governor, both before and after the DST legislation passed, for not taking a stand on where the time zone should be.

The Lafayette Journal & Courier has a story here.

Taking Down Words has a blog entry on the subject, arguing while the author favors Eastern Daylight Time, this is another example of Daniels broken campaign promises.

D Derek says EDT is great for late evening sunlight, bad for live TV events.

Lesley Stedman Weidenbener has an article for the Louisville Courier-Journal quoting Rep. Dave Crooks:

Rep. Dave Crooks, D-Washington, and others argued that if Indiana is to observe daylight time, most of it should move into the Central time zone, especially since Daniels said during his campaign that he supported a switch to Central time.

The federal hearings were intended to test whether that argument reflected popular opinion.

Yesterday, Crooks said he’s disappointed that federal officials will force local governments to take on the burden of applying for a change. He blamed Daniels for failing to provide enough leadership on the issue.

“I think the governor called his Washington, D.C., friends and found a way out of the hearings,” Crooks said. “He knows these people and has a lot of connections.”

It also has an interesting quote from Rep. Torr, author of the DST bill, suggesting that the USDOT suggested that this would be the result when the General Assembly was considering the requirement that the Governor request hearings. If the federal government gave a heads up, that makes the paucity of Governor Daniels’ submission even more inexcusable.

Jennifer Whitson has an article for the Evansville Courier Press (free subscription required) saying that the USDOT has indicated that any interested local jurisdiction should apply to by a yet to be set deadline. This is misleading since the counties have always been able to apply for time zone consideration. What SECTION 3 of SEA 127 contemplated was a comprehensive statewide process led by the Governor.

A few people have notified me that their comments had been blocked and they got a notice that they’d been blocked for “inappropriate content.” That’s just a generic message that goes out for any blocked content, regardless if it’s because of language (though I don’t think I have any language filters set up) or from known spammers.

In any event, reviewing my logs, for some reason I had gotten a filter into my MTBlacklist blocker that blocked posts with the string “..”. So, for example, if you put a string of … to indicate a gap, your comment would get blocked. I believe this problem has been fixed.

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette is running a series on changes to state government under Governor Daniels. Today’s installment by Niki Kelly takes a look at the Indiana Gaming Commission. Former Clay County judge, Ernest Yelton has taken the helm. His first action was to help scotch a shady looking deal involving Trump building a casino in French Lick. Apparently the Donald invited Yelton to play golf afterward, which Yelton had to decline because of ethical concerns. (Taking notes Rep. DeLay?). Speaking of taking notes, Yelton is apparently taking notes from “the Untouchables” — his review of the gaming industry is shifting from merely doing criminal history checks to looking into financial aspects, reviewing bank and tax statements. (Tax fraud brought down Capone, after all.) The article goes on to discuss other changes Yelton has in mind. As always, Ms. Kelly and the Journal Gazette do a bang up job.

Today’s Indy Star article is entitled Outdated rules stifle tech competition.

Federal and state regulators, however, need to revamp outmoded utility regulations based on an age when the telephone company provided only phone service and electric utilities focused on electricity. State lawmakers failed last session to enact a modest measure that would have leveled the playing field for traditional telephone companies competing with other phone service providers.

Far more vision is needed between now and next session in helping Indiana welcome the digital revolution.

I’m not positive which piece of legislation the Indy Star had in mind, but a quick search for “broadband” on this site suggests it may have been SB 381

Establishes the statewide broadband system. Establishes the statewide broadband account within the higher education statewide telecommunications fund. Establishes the Indiana broadband development program to be administered by the Indiana development finance authority. The broadband development program is established to encourage the development of affordable broadband services and networks in underserved areas in Indiana. The broadband development program coordinates the financing of broadband infrastructure development and otherwise facilitates the establishment of broadband service in underserved areas in Indiana.

In addition, the bill provides for increasing limitations of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s jurisdiction over telecommunications services. Starting on July 1, 2005, it doesn’t have jurisdiction over advanced, broadband, and information services. Starting on July 1, 2007, the IURC doesn’t have jurisdiction over any nonbasic telecommunication service. And, starting on July 1, 2010, it doesn’t have jurisdiction over basic telephone service.

As I recall, and I could well be misremembering, the utilities didn’t much care for the broadband development portion of the program. It called for the state to get involved in deploying broadband to underserved areas if the utilities didn’t get it done within a certain time period. And corporate governance types didn’t like the removal of oversight from telecommunications utilities. The oversight was put in place for a reason. Ignoring history dooms us to repetition.

But, then again, maybe the Star was talking about something else. The editorial talks about the ability of electric utilities to provide broadband over their lines. Then it talks about the fading distinctions between utilities.

The discussion has merit, but the very first thing the legislature has to do before allowing free reign in broadband and other nonbasic services is to separate the subsidized portion of the utility from the competitive portions. Traditional utilities have advantages and powers not enjoyed by newcomers. Coming to mind are, as I said, subsidies for things like plain old telephone service (POTS) and electric connections to rural utilities. They also have easements in the rights of way and eminent domain powers. All of these things are fine trade offs for making sure every Hoosier has access to basic telephone and electric services, but they create a problem when we allow the utilities to compete with other businesses. The utilities can leverage these advantages directly or indirectly to make sure they have a leg up when competing to provide nonbasic services. This screws up market forces — as all subsidies tend to do.

I’m not sure hamstringing utility leverage is what the Star had in mind when calling for visionary legislation to allow utilities to compete to provide non-basic services.

Excellent! Indiana’s premiere newspaper, The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette’s “Political Notebook gave me a mention along with some other fine blogs:

Blogs bring news on weekdays, too

Political Notebook is not ashamed to admit that some of our best stuff comes from astute people who post on a number of Indiana-specific blogs.

With that said, here is a list of a few interesting blogs you might want to check out:

• www.masson.us/blog – Not as much commentary, but a great collection of good reporting by the media statewide.

• www.takingdownwords.com – Written by a Democrat with a decided slant, but reading the comments posted back and forth by well-known Republicans and Democrats at times is priceless.

• .com (sic) – A blog “to chronicle the life as a dissident in the Heartland. Life in a red state leaves one blue.”

A few others include www.inpolitico.blogspot.com, www.advanceindiana.blogspot.com and www.punchthebag.com

Following the Marion County suit against the state regarding the constitutionality of charging counties for detaining juveniles, Allen County may withhold $8 million state debt.

Allen County Council President Darren Vogt, said he believes the county should hold on to its money while Marion County contests the debt in court. Bob Scott, Noble County Council president, said although he supported Peterson’s efforts, he doesn’t believe the county will stop making its payments. “We offered them a (repayment) plan,” he said. “I think we should keep our word.”

Via Kemplog and Richmond’s Palladium-Item is an editorial from Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard arguing, in light of Randolph County’s recent vote to destroy its courthouse, that our courthouses deserve honor, not demolition.

In most Hoosier county seats, the three tallest structures historically were the grain elevator, the church and the courthouse. Despite our skyscraping capability, this remains true in a remarkable number of our 92 counties.

The grain elevator visibly declares the dominance of agriculture, an industrial engine that remains an important aspect of the state’s economy. The soaring church steeple, erected at great expense by contributions from the congregation, documents our forebears’ belief in God and gratitude for the blessings of their American lives. The towering courthouse symbolizes their hopes for the creation of a just society.

The British call such structures “government houses.” Ignoring inherited terminology, Americans labeled these buildings courthouses, suggesting that the dispensing of justice was a higher aspiration. The term reflects what the founders of our country hoped for when they wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Considering the years in which most of Indiana’s current courthouses were built — the 1870s through the 1890s — the sheer size and elegance tells you a great deal about the importance people gave to constructing the place where justice is dispensed. The expenditure of hundreds of thousands in 1880 reflected the serious level of commitment to what our 19th Century counterparts considered the most elevating of our civic activities.

Part II of Justice Shepard’s column is available here.

A look at our past reminds me of a discussion I had with my dad when I was a teenager. Richmond was struggling with trying to repair the “G” Street Bridge, a pretty significant structure spanning the Whitewater Gorge. Through most of my teen years, it seemed that Richmond was struggling with simply maintaining its infrastructure. So, it occurred to me to ask how we ever afforded to build it in the first place. Dad didn’t really have an answer for me, but looking back on it, I wonder if it was a matter of having more resources in the past or if citizens were simply willing to put more of their resources into their communities when our cities and basic infrastructure was being built.

In any event, I have no knowledge of the Randolph County case. (links are to pictures of the respective courthouses.) I just know that I get to work in the Tippecanoe County courthouse. I’m exceedingly happy that the folks in Tippecanoe County decided to restore that magnificent structure rather than demolish it. I have occasion to work in White County and Cass County from time to time, and going to court in those counties just isn’t the same. In defense of White County, its courthouse was destroyed by a tornado. I’d also be very upset if the Wayne County courthouse was destroyed. It’s a pretty notable structure.

Generally, unlike adult offenders, when a juvenile offender is sent to detention by a state court judge, a county is expected to pick up the tab. This has led to huge juvenile detention bills for many counties around the state. The state has dramatically stepped up its collection efforts by tying property tax relief subsidies to repayment of the juvenile detention bills. Those subsidies were enacted to help cushion the effect of restructuring on the state’s taxpayers. (Note, the state doesn’t allow a set off for debts the state might owe the county. In particular, I’m thinking of fees for adult detention owed by the state to the county. When the Indiana Dept. of Correction houses its inmates in the county jails, the state is supposed to pay the county. However, the fact that the state owes a county as much in adult detention fees as the county owes the state in juvenile detention fees does not matter to the state when it threatens to cut off property tax subsidies to the county.

Now, the Indy Star is reporting Indy sues state over cost of locking up kids. Basically, faced with $60 million in juvenile detention debt to the state, Marion County is saying that charging the county for juvenile detention is unconstitutional.

David Bottorff, executive director of the Association of Indiana Counties, said juvenile prisoners are just as much a state obligation as adult prisoners. Indiana pays the entire cost to imprison adults.

Counties have little control over how many children are sent to state facilities or how much is spent on them once they arrive. Juvenile court judges sentence offenders and the Department of Correction oversees their stay.

Now, Bottorff said, the state is threatening to withhold tax subsidies unless it gets its way.

“Property tax relief was never meant to be a punishment for the counties,” he said. “It was meant to help. Now, it’s become something to hold over the heads of the local units to get them to do something they don’t want to do.”

Other counties may risk not paying their bills until the lawsuit is settled, Bottorff said. Marion County’s decision to withhold payments might create a domino effect that could put a hole in the state budget, he said.

. . .
In the lawsuit, Indianapolis argued the state constitution requires the General Assembly to provide for “the correction and reformation of juvenile offenders.” The city’s lawyers said that means the state must pay the cost.

For its part, the State simply says its enforcing a valid law. But, this has the potential for being an interesting suit. The Indiana Constitution says, says, “The General Assembly shall provide institutions for the correction and reformation of juvenile offenders.” Furthermore, all trial court judges are state –not county– officials. (Try suing a state court judge in federal court, wrestle with 11th Amendment related motions, and you’ll see what I mean.) So when a trial court judge puts a juvenile in detention, essentially, you have a state official incurring a bill payable by the county for a service the Constitution suggests should be provided by the General Assembly. So, while Marion County may very well lose the case, it shouldn’t get laughed out of court.

A July 8th article in the Post Tribune opines that Legislative session good for small firms.

Sounds like the paper has an opinion in its news section, but in any event, the report notes that the Chamber of Commerce thought small businesses saw big gains.

Specific changes include increases and exemptions in research and development. For example, starting in 2008, the Senate increased the R&D tax credit to 15 percent for the first $1 million invested, up from 10 percent. Also, R&D equipment purchases are exempt from state sales tax by 50 percent starting next month and by 100 percent after July 2007.

In the same legislation, companies that relocate their headquarters to Indiana will be eligible for a tax credit equal to 50 percent of the relocation costs, Brinegar said.

One of the most important elements to the legislation was House Bill 1653, known as the “Shovel-Ready” bill. It would allow local governments to obtain all or part of any permits to create sites a business could start developing immediately instead of having to go through all the permit processes.