The Legislative Council passed a resolution (PDF) setting up various interim study committees and assigning topics of study. They include:

Public security and regulatory matters charged with studying Boxing Commission regulations (SR 21); Public safety, homeland security, and identification issues (SB 201; HB 1597); and Identity theft (HCR 74).

Fire Safety Issues charged with studying Building, fire, and equipment laws (HCR 71; and Fire safety in dorms and senior care facilities (SCR 12).

Motor Vehicle Issues (a/k/a The ‘payback Joel Silverman Committee’) charged with studying License branch siting criteria required under IC 9-15-2-1 and the administration of those criteria when a branch is closed under IC 9-1-2.5 (Legislative Council); The procurement and implementation criteria for the State Tracking and Record System (“STAR”) information technology by the BMV (Legislative Council); and Staff hiring patterns and other BMV personnel management issues (Legislative Council)

Census Data Advisory Committee is charged with studying the effectiveness of the state election commission structure.

Child custody and support advisory committee is charged with studying child support for post-secondary education.

Criminal law study committee is charged with studying Interstate compact on violent felons and sex offenders (SB 390); and Pedophiles (SR 60).

Education Roundtable is charged with studying high school dropout rates in Indiana.

Environmental Quality Service Council is charged with studying environmental funds, mercury recovery issues, confined feeding operations, and biofuels: agriculture based alternatives to petroleum fuels.

FSSA Evaluation Committee is charged with studying Survey of FSSA service providers and consumers (SCR 7); and Evaluate the impact of the administrative dissolution of Step Ahead Councils.

Gaming Research Department is charged with studying Impact of gaming on Indiana citizens and communities (HB 1342); and Effects of gambling on Indiana citizens (per letter from Rep. Welch).

Health Finance Commission is charged with studying Cost of infertility treatment (SR 37); Certificate of need (CON) and a moratorium on construction of nursing home beds (Legislative Council); and the problems surrounding childhood and adult obesity (Legislative Council)

The local government efficiency and financing study commission is charged with studying Replacing all property taxes with substitute funding (HB 1723; HB 1616); Administration of personal property tax collection (SB 171 amendment); Smart growth and local planning issues (HB 1602); and Fiscal impact of public lands on local government units (HR 84)

The Natural Resources Study Committee is charged with studying Tillery Hill State Recreation area (SR 61).

The Northwest Indiana Transportation Study Commission is charged with studying Northwest Indiana Transportation, infrastructure, and economic development issues (HB 1299; SB 30).

The Pension Management Oversight Commission is charged with studying Local government pension relief distribution delay (SR 10); Repeal of the expiration of deferred retirement option plan (DROP) (SR 11); and Volunteer public safety officers health benefits/presumptions (Unnumbered HR).

The Probate study commission is charged with studying living wills.

The Sentencing policy study committee is charged with studying Pretrial diversion programs (SR 39); Pretrial service fee while on bail (HB 1055; SR 35); and Reduction in correctional costs, including a prisoner release program for offenders who no longer pose a threat to Hoosiers (Unnumbered SR).

The state tax and financing policy commission is charged with studying the fiscal impact of federal mandates on local schools.

The tourism council is charged with studying the impact of school start date.

Starting July 1, 2005, the jurisdiction for Indiana’s small claims dockets will increase from $3,000 to $6,000 pursuant to Indiana Code 33-29-2-4

I’ve been having a tough time figuring out what the actual small claims filing fee is jumping to. I called two county clerks on Monday and the Indiana Supreme Court. Everybody agreed fees were going up on July 1, but nobody seemed to know by how much. I heard one person say $70 + $10 for each additional defendant. But, I went to one of the statutes governing court fees and couldn’t get the math to come up to the $46 it is now, so I’m clearly missing something.

A Journal Gazette editorial makes the economic case against the death penalty. They start out by saying that the victim’s family has a pretty simple interest, revenge. It goes on to say, “And if justice were based on visceral reactions to crime, then the death penalty would make sense. However, American justice has moved beyond an eye-for-an-eye order of punishment. If we did live in such a place, then all punishment would be based on the extreme margins of cruelty.”

But, the editorial argues, it’s cheaper to incarcerate an inmate for life than it is to execute him. Why should budgetary concerns affect every other part of government but not the death penalty.

Let’s face it: The state doesn’t get much out of executions. The deterrence argument is dubious, as is the notion that it’s better for the public’s safety.

As for costs, the state and counties spend on average $741,000 over 16 years to execute a 30-year-old offender sentenced to murder, according to the Legislative Service Bureau. The figure includes jail costs, prosecutor’s and defender’s fees from murder trial through appeals, and execution costs.

It costs states and counties $622,000 to lock the same person up for life, estimated to be 47 years in prison. That includes appeals, which aren’t automatically triggered as they are in death penalty cases, as well as health care costs. It costs $506,000 to imprison someone sentenced to 65 years with a 50 percent reduction for good behavior.

The money saved could be redistributed to the juvenile justice system, victim’s assistance, offender re-entry schemes, grassroots police programs and social service agencies that work with at-risk youth.

The money and resources saved by ending the death penalty would have a more profound effect to the greater good of Indiana than executing murderers.

My personal objection to the death penalty ties into the economic argument, I suppose. Based on the Illinois investigations and the horror stories I hear coming out of Texas, I’m not altogether convinced we have a great system to make sure we are 100% accurate on our death penalty convictions. Ensuring greater accuracy would involve greater expense. (From a moral standpoint, if our system is able to ensure the accuracy of the conviction, I have no qualms about the State killing murderers.)

And, I have one possible nit to pick with the editorial’s selection. They base their cost structure on 30 year old murderers. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that most murderers would be younger than that. Seems like most violent crime is committed by those in their teens and early twenties. But, maybe it takes awhile to work their way up from mere violent crime to actual murder.

As for costs, the state and counties spend on average $741,000 over 16
years to execute a 30-year-old offender sentenced to murder, according
to the Legislative Service Bureau. The figure includes jail costs,
prosecutor’s and defender’s fees from murder trial through appeals, and
execution costs.

The South Bend Tribune has an AP story wherein John Hostettler whines about how persecuted his preferred brand of proselytizing Christianity is by the mean old Democrats. You may recall my previous entry wherein Rep. Hostettler was whining about a mean old federal court judge who feels bound by the First Amendment and 7th Circuit case law and, consequently, told Gibson County to take the Ten Commandments display down from their court house.

At issue this time “is how Congress should respond to allegations of proselytizing and favoritism for Christians at the Air Force Academy.”

Obey had succeeded during committee debate in attaching a provision condemning Air Force Academy officers for creating a climate where non-Christians were discriminated against.

The Air Force is investigating numerous allegations of inappropriate actions by academy officials, including a professor who required cadets to pray before taking his test and a Protestant chaplain who warned anyone not proselytizing would “burn in the fires of hell.”

Obey said a senior chaplain at the academy was transferred to Japan after criticizing what she saw as proselytizing.

In response, Hostettler, on the floor of Congress said “Like a moth to a flame, Democrats can’t help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians.” Democrats immediately objected and demanded that he be censured. Hostettler backed down and retracted his remarks.

Update 6/21/05: The Evansville Courier Press has more.

Hostettler began his remarks opposing Obey’s amendment by saying, “the long war on Christianity continues today on the floor of the House of Representatives. It continues unabated with aid and comfort to those who would eradicate any vestige of our Christian heritage being supplied by the usual suspects, the Democrats.”

He later said, “Like a moth to a flame, Democrats can’t help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians.”

. . .

Obey said Hostettler’s “outburst . . . is perhaps the perfect example of why we need to pass the language in my amendment.”

Obey’s proposed amendment to a defense appropriations bill would have put Congress on record as being against “coercive and abusive religious proselytizing” at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo.

Incidentally, according to the Washington Post coverage of the issue Rep. Obey’s motion in response to Hostettler’s outburst was that Hostettler’s “words be taken down” which, of course, brings to mind Indiana’s very own Taking Down Words.

Hostettler had a choice: to agree to withdraw his words, or to stick by them and face a ruling from the chair that he had violated rules against disparaging another member on the floor. If the member’s words are taken down, it is considered a serious offense and the lawmaker would not be able to speak for the rest of the day.

Eventually, Hostettler rose and read a sentence that had been written out for him in large block letters by a young Republican floor aide: “Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the last sentence I spoke.”

Update 6/21/05 at 5:10 p.m. Poking around the Internet, I see some additional commentary on Rep. Hostettler. I enjoyed the commentary by Gadflies and thumbtacks, in particular this:

m so relieved that the Jesus Christ I bumped into on the way to adulthood is such a peace-nik and has such a fondness for odd company, welcoming anyone who knocks. As I kid, I was impressed that He said “Let the little children…”, not “somebody MAKE the little children come unto me”. It occurred to me then that maybe there was something in that free will business, after all. I don’t know who it was that Mr. Hostettler met on the way to adulthood, but chances are, I wouldn’t have liked him.

On the other hand, I find For Freedom We Stand’s assessment to be ridiculous:

Hostettler’s right.

Every Christian viewpoint is supported by Republicans and vehemently opposed by the Democrats, whether pro-life on abortion, in favor of banning homosexual marraige, stopping affirmative action, allowing prayer in schools, supporting the intelligent design anti-evolution movement, or displaying the Ten Commandments.

That’s a nice selective list (I’ve gotta say, the part about affirmative action confuses me. I was unware of a Biblical connection.) Note the absence of the inconvenient bits in the Bible about peace, humility, and helping the poor.

Progressive Depot figures Hostettler is trying to make a name for himself and sees a trend, noting recent rhetoric about how Democrats are “against people of faith.” — a meme that readers of this blog may recall in response to the ICLU’s suit against sectarian prayer as part of official House business.

Civil Commotion asks of Hostettler “who is this idiot?” and provides some background about the proselytization at the Air Force Academy. According to that site (the links of which I haven’t checked for accuracy):

The details of the Academy’s excesses have been well documented, and include offenses such as calling jewish students “filthy jews” and “Jesus killers.” Nobody should be uneasy about a demand that such things stop, and stop at once. It’s not about denigrating Christians; it’s about not denigrating minority faiths.

I also found this entry at Nero Fiddled. The author doesn’t mention the recent brouhaha over Hostettler’s comments about Democrats not being able to help themselves from demonizing Christians, but it does contain a passage about Hostettler’s amendment designed to prevent the enforcement of the federal court’s order to remove the Ten Commandments monument at the Gibson County court house. It is part of a thoughtful piece about a small segment of politically active Christians who seem to be unhappy with the secular rule of law but duplicitous when talking about the subject. The passage on Hostettler is as follows:

After shrieking that the ruling denied “the Christian heritage of the United States,” Hostettler now seeks essentially to overturn Marbury v. Madison — the landmark 1803 case which established the judiciary as the final arbiter of constitutionality. “The genius of the American system,” says the Times editorial, “is that the founders carefully balanced power among three coequal branches. Mr. Hostettler’s amendment would throw out this brilliant structure, and 200 years of constitutional history, and make Congress the final interpreter of the Constitution.” While the amendment is unlikely to survive in the Senate, its quiet passage in the House is unsettling.

The Muncie Star Press has an editorial entitled BMV’s plan logical, but slowdown needed. The editorial supports BMV commissioner Silverman in theory, but criticizes him on style points, saying that he’s moving too fast and needs to fine tune the process by listening to constituents and working better with legislators. The editorial points out the obvious money to be saved by closing offices. It also points out that the BMV has been a source of pork over the years.

But then the paper goes on to complain about closings in the general area of Muncie. This is exactly why Silverman needs to minimize legislative interaction and public hearings. Every legislator and every member of the public thinks that the system is wasteful generally but a great investment in their locality. It’s not their branch that’s the problem. It’s someone else’s. So long as Silverman is acting impartially on the basis of data and realistic assumptions about how a BMV branch should work and how many people it can serve in a reasonably expeditious manner, he should just make his command decision and let the chips fall where they may.

The Evansville Courier Press has a story on a new federal driver’s license law that will make it tougher to get an ID card. Unlike now, once the federal law is implemented, you won’t be able to walk out of the BMV with your license. This will, in turn, make it tougher to vote since voting now requires state or federal ID.

Not much time to elaborate, as I am appropriately spending Father’s Day with my son. But Mary Beth Schneider has a good story in the Indy Star about Daniels’ struggle with gay rights entitled Gay rights a political tightrope for Daniels.

Daniels’ problem, I think, is that he is at heart the kind of business, country club Republican I grew up with. Problem is that Republicans, in large measure, have gotten their recent political strength from social conservatives. Personally, I don’t think I have any irreconcileable differences with business conservatives. Some haggling over the details, but very few, if any, fundamental rifts. The social conservatives, on the other hand, I’m at odds with. I don’t believe this country was founded as a Christian Nation. I don’t believe legislating morality is effective or desirable. And I believe that what goes on in the privacy of my own home, boring as it may be, is my own business. If it were just Governor Daniels and me (that’s pretty likely, right?), we could probably agree on most things fast enough to make our tee time. Unfortunately, the Governor owes the social conservatives for his election, and that leads to problems. (The anti-gay civil union amendment to the Indiana Constitution, for example.)

The South Bend Tribune has an article entitled SouthBendTribune.com: 4 counties agree same time zone is ideal

Commissioners from Marshall, Kosciusko, Elkhart and St. Joseph counties met Thursday and decided they would all like to remain in the same time zone — either Central or Eastern.

The federal Department of Transportation will decide what time zones will prevail in Indiana now that the Indiana General Assembly voted in daylight-saving time.

Of course, it’s entirely possible that the Dept. of Transportation won’t make any decisions at all if I am correct in my assessment that Governor Daniels failed to follow the procedure prescribed by the USDOT in requesting consideration of new time zones.

Matthew Tully has a column on Rep. Troy Woodruff (R-Vincennes) entitled Time will tell whether lawmaker can be forgiven.

Seems the folks in Woodruff’s district are mad at him for breaking his word. See, he promised that he would never vote for Daylight Saving Time. Not only did he vote for Daylight Saving Time — he was the final and deciding vote for Daylight Saving Time. Woodruff is a freshman representative who won his seat by 127 votes over incumbent John Frenz.

Sitting in his office, Frenz played a nasty GOP radio ad from 2004. While the ad slammed Frenz for breaking his word, he can now laugh at its closing sentence: “When Troy Woodruff gives us his word, we can trust him to keep it.”

Oops.

Woodruff says he’s crossing his fingers hoping that his district gets moved into the Central Time Zone. There would be a better chance of that if Governor Daniels would have followed the procedure required by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation. As it is, I’d be surprised if the U.S. Dept. of Transportation actually conducts hearings on the matter.

Mary Beth Schneider has more on the BMV closings in an article entitled BMV methods under scrutiny. As you may recall, BMV chief Joel Silverman made Senate President Bob Garton angry when Silverman sandbagged the General Assembly by waiting until the General Assembly was out of session to announce the closing of a number of BMV branches. One of the branches was in Garton’s district. After some hearings, the branch in Garton’s district was pulled off the chopping block. In an admirable display of honesty, Silverman admitted that Garton’s political clout was the reason the Hope branch was removed from the list.

Now, the Legislative Council has decided to create a study commission to examine Silverman’s decision to close 9 branches immediately and up to 24 branches later this year. Pretty clearly, this commission is designed to apply what pressure the General Assembly can while it’s out of session. My mind could be changed, but I think I’m with Silverman on this one. If it’s true that we have more BMV branches than we need and/or can afford, then I think you just need an executive to pull the trigger. Relegating the decision to legislative committees would have resulted in needed branches in politically weak areas getting cut while (as we see in the case of the Hope district) unnecessary branches in politically powerful areas remain untouched.

Of more interest to me, however, is the Legislative Council’s decision to investigate Silverman’s hiring practice. Silverman was formerly a Galyans executive. He replaced state employees with 21 former Galyans employees. Silverman defends the cronyism, saying the new hires are “far superior in experience and ability than anybody we’ve had here before.” If these are all part of Silverman’s inner-BMV circle then, aside from saying his inner circle is way too big, I probably don’t have a big problem with it. But, if he’s just getting rid of rank and file BMV employees and replacing them with his own supporters, then Silverman needs a reminder that the spoils system favored by Andrew Jackson went out of vogue around the time of Teddy Roosevelt.