Senate Bill 0123

Synopsis: Confined feeding operations. Requires the department of environmental management to revoke the approval for a confined feeding operation if at least three violations of confined feeding or water pollution control laws occur at the confined feeding operation in any two year period. Prohibits the department from waiving certain civil penalties for violations of confined feeding laws.

Seems like there was a particular confined feeding operation that fits this description a year or two back. I wonder if they got off with a slap on the wrist.

Introduced Version, Senate Bill 0119

From the “this will cost more money in paperwork than it saves” Department, SB 119 proposes an annual report and audit of unpaid restitution orders owed to government entities. It makes explicit the authority to demand that the debtor show cause and for the court to hold the debtor in contempt. I imagine the intent of this bill is to increase revenues for government entities without raising taxes. However, most folks who owe criminal restitution simply don’t have any money. Putting them in jail on a contempt order isn’t going to save any money. On the upside, maybe they’ll farm out the collections work to guys like me on a contingency basis. If you hound these guys for 5-10 years, occasionally you get lucky. The government isn’t set up to make that kind of extended effort. I am.

Check out all the information the report has to have:

A copy of the restitution order.

The amount of restitution originally ordered.

The amount of restitution that is unpaid.

The name of the person ordered to pay the restitution.

The governmental entity entitled to receive the restitution.

A statement regarding whether the person ordered to pay restitution has met the person’s obligations under the restitution order in a timely manner.

If the restitution order is in arrears, the amount of the arrearage.

Any other information relevant to the restitution order.

(This bill introduced by Mr. Van, that’s his name, that name again is Mr. Van. Err, Mrvan.)

Introduced Version, Senate Bill 0096:

Bifurcated sentencing. Allows a court to impose a sentence greater than the presumptive sentence only if: (1) the state proves the existence of an aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt; or (2) the defendant has one or more prior unrelated convictions.

I believe this proposed legislation is Indiana’s answer to the Supreme Court’s Blakely decision that has the federal sentencing structure in such a mess. My understanding is that Indiana didn’t really have a problem with its current structure. Maybe this is a “better safe than sorry” approach. Or, maybe my assumptions are wrong.

Introduced Version, Senate Bill 0099 The synopsis:

Criminal code general purpose statement. Provides that the criminal code must be founded on the principle of reformation, not vindictive justice, and establishes the means and goals to be considered in establishing criminal penalties and imposing sentences. Specifies that these provisions do not create a cause of action or supersede any statute, and may not be used in litigation to obtain any form of relief.

I always hated drafting “purpose statements” when I worked for the General Assembly. They don’t do a darn thing — a point which is thankfully spelled out in this particular statement — an often times they create confusion. The casual statutory reader thinks that the purpose statement has the force of law. But, the purpose statements are only an opinion of sorts. And, as we all know, opinions are like certain anatomical features in that everyone has one. Future General Assemblies, or even the current one, can just ignore this provision. It doesn’t mean a thing until you tie a penalty or other enforcement mechanism to it.

(Oh, and just for those who may not be aware, the business about the criminal code being founded on the principle of reformation, not vindictive justice is lifted from the Indiana Constitution and reflects the Enlightenment values of the drafters of the mid 19th century. I doubt our current crop of legislators would come up with such bleeding-heart language if left to their own devices.)

Introduced Version, Senate Bill 0077: Allows someone who towed your vehicle to have a mechanics lien on the vehicle and sell it if you don’t pay. I do not believe that the law applies to vehicles that are towed off of property where you weren’t supposed to park, but it could, depending on how broad the definition of “abandoned” vehicle is. At the moment, I’m too lazy to research the issue. My experience with folks in the towing industry leads me to believe that this isn’t a great idea.

I can’t get any information to load yet, but there are some interesting new Senate Bills posted.

SB 0076 — Abortion requirements.

SB 0077 — Mechanic’s liens on towed vehicles.

SB 0078 — Wage payment issues.

SB 0079 — Intrastate commercial vehicle registration.

SB 0080 — Equipment suppliers and retailers.

SB 0081 — National Guard tuition supplement grant.

SB 0082 — High school diplomas.

SB 0083 — Eligibility for admission to Veterans’ Home.

SB 0084 — Volunteer firefighter income tax deduction.

SB 0085 — Disqualification for unemployment compensation.

SB 0086 — Railroad employee housing.

SB 0087 — State police pension benefits.

SB 0088 — Judges’ retirement benefits.

SB 0089 — Lighting and marking of agricultural equipment.

SB 0090 — Sales tax exemption for certain Internet property.

SB 0091 — Hoosier business investment credit.

SB 0092 — Internet gambling.

SB 0093 — Validation of bonds and other obligations.

SB 0094 — Employment absence for volunteer firefighters.

SB 0095 — Sentencing policy study committee.

SB 0096 — Bifurcated sentencing.

SB 0097 — Repeat sexual offender.

SB 0098 — Probation revocation.

SB 0099 — Criminal code general purpose statement.

SB 0100 — Local option income taxes.

SB 0101 — Modification of the terms of probation.

SB 0102 — Foreign judgments.

SB 0103 — Attendance officers.

SB 0104 — Renaissance zones.

SB 0105 — Background checks.

SB 0106 — Health plan evidence of coverage.

SB 0107 — Child care and development fund.

SB 0108 — Counterfeit goods.

SB 0111 — Local funding for Memorial Day celebrations.

SB 0112 — Academic honors diploma awards.

SB 0113 — Excise police and conservation officer pensions.

SB 0114 — Hypnotists.

SB 0115 — Interstate probation compacts.

SB 0116 — Sex offender penalties.

SB 0117 — Undisclosed transport of dangerous devices.

SB 0118 — Offender registry.

SB 0119 — Annual review of unpaid restitution orders.

SB 0120 — Dearborn superior court.

SB 0121 — Use of pawned property.

SB 0122 — Driver’s license penalty for criminal mischief.

SB 0123 — Confined feeding operations.

SB 0124 — Credit time for pretrial home detention.

SB 0125 — Commercial vehicle insurance.

SB 0126 — Legislator members of Great Lakes Commission.

SB 0127 — Speed limit on section of U.

SB 0128 — Collective bargaining for public safety employees.

SB 0129 — Teacher pension credit for military service.

SB 0130 — Motor carrier inspector salary matrix.

SB 0131 — Disability benefits for public safety officers.

SB 0132 — Premises liability.

SB 0133 — Immunity for boat patrol officers.

SB 0139 — Professional licensing agency.

SB 0140 — Use of charity gaming proceeds.

SB 0141 — Fire marshal investigator salary matrix.

SB 0142 — Carbon monoxide detection devices.

SB 0143 — Postmortem radiographs.

SB 0144 — Beer and wine sales.

SB 0145 — Trademarks.

SB 0146 — Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.

SB 0147 — Uniform arbitration act.

SB 0148 — Use of credit report information.

SB 0149 — Trustees of pension funds.

SB 0150 — Bone density testing coverage.

The good news is that Experts predict a $1.8 billion revenue boost according to the Indy Star. But, as the article points out:

But that extra money won’t go far. Public schools say they need more money over the next two years to operate at current levels. Public colleges and universities want an extra $500 million. And the cost of operating the Medicaid health care program is escalating.

I read a chapter or two in an Indiana history book last night. The author stated that Indiana’s constitutional convention and early political experience was very democratic and populist. There was an optimism about the ability of government to benefit the governed. The constitution called for free education and for a reformative as opposed to a punitive justice system. Early political efforts were to build infrastructure. Infrastructure efforts tended not to be focused on one or two particular projects but rather statewide and, as a result, piecemeal and rather unfocused. During the canal building era between the War of 1812 and the Civil War, Indiana engaged on a monumental group of infrastructure projects and borrowed huge sums of money. Shortly thereafter, a financial panic hit the country and Indiana defaulted on its obligations. Indiana became synonymous with fiscal recklessness. The theory goes that this wounded the state badly and has led to a cautiousness that tends toward a lack of vision and a government that provides the bare minimum to its citizens.

That’s mostly a digression. Vision or no, the Medicaid program is a financial black hole and it’s still not adequate. I don’t know what the answer is though. Sick people are just expensive. Maybe the state would be better off just spending a bunch of money on light rail and other infrastructure as well as kick ass schools and other investments that will help healthy people prosper. Nah, that can’t be the right thing to do.

Good article from the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette on the truck seat belt and road fund formula entitled: Journal Gazette | 12/12/2004 | Truck-plate fight looms for seat belts

The two basic issues are that 1) for seatbelts, there are going to be folks who think their rights are being compromised by having a truck and being required to wear a seatbelt; and 2) the formula restructuring that would likely help rural counties at the expense of metropolitan counties. I don’t believe the article mentions that the proposed seatbelt law also requires backseat passengers to be belted in. As I understand it, the road fund is currently divided up by counting the number of passenger vehicles (but not pickup trucks or SUVs registered as trucks) and giving each county its pro rata share based on the ratio of its passenger vehicles to the total number of passenger vehicles. Throwing pickup trucks into the mix would help your county if more of the counties vehicles were pickups than in other counties.

I wasn’t much taken by the article’s reliance on “local resident Jason Eminger” for constitutional analysis. He says that he shouldn’t be told to wear a seatbelt because “if I hurt anybody, it’ll be myself.” That’d be fine logic if Mr. Eminger is heavily insured against personal injury. But, my guess is that if Mr. Eminger required 30 years of tube feeding and diaper changes, it’d be the Indiana taxpayers or his family who bore the heaviest burden, neither of whom Mr. Eminger would have consulted before “exercising his right” not to wear a seat belt. I’m generally a hardcore Bill of Rights sort of guy, but wearing a seat belt is too trivial a burden with too great a benefit for me to get worked up over.

Back on the subject of the road formula, the article notes that former Senator Borst headed up the Finance Committee and was from Indy so he generally sat on previous road formula change bills. I’m not sure who will head up the Senate Finance Committee.