A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Sen. Charbonneau has introduced SB 106 requiring the Department of Local Government Finance to develop criteria for evaluating the fiscal health of a political subdivision. Suggested indicators are: cash balance, debt to revenue ratio, assessed value, per capita tax revenue, per capita operating revenue, tax revenue trends, and whether there is a structural deficit or surplus.

The DLGF is then instructed to spoon feed the data to the public – or, at least, the legislation requires that the information be conveniently and easily accessible from a single website, and “must be presented in a manner that is commonly known as an Internet dashboard.”

Although I’ve spent more than my fair share of time on the Internet, I was not immediately familiar with the term “Internet dashboard.” I did find this definition:

An easy to read, often single page, real-time user interface, showing a graphical presentation of the current status (snapshot) and historical trends of an organization’s key performance indicators (KPIs) to enable instantaneous and informed decisions to be made at a glance.

Rep. Neese introduced HB 1024 concerning government impact on real property rights. Again, the text of the bill is not currently available, and I am going off of the digest.

[I]f an action of a state or local governmental entity taken after June 30, 2014, to enforce or otherwise apply a law or other regulation: (1) creates an inordinate burden on, restriction on, or limitation of real property rights on an existing use of private real property or a vested right to a specific use of private real property; and (2) the action does not constitute a taking of private real property under the Constitution of the State of Indiana or the Constitution of the United States; the property owner is entitled to relief, including compensation for the actual loss to the fair market value of the real property[.]

So, how much money are lawyers in the state going to make arguing over what constitutes “inordinate”? (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.) So, I think what is going on, as a practical matter, is that Rep. Neese is attempting to lower the bar on what constitutes a taking in an inverse condemnation case. In a direct condemnation case, there will always be a “taking” so the person is entitled to compensation. Inverse condemnation has to do with a government action that deprives the individual of the use of their property. It’s been awhile so I had one of these, so my recollection is a little rusty – but, generally, if the government impact is specific to the property in question, there is a taking for which the property owner is entitled to compensation. If it’s a general thing, then the owner is not.

For example, if the government makes a change to the road that deprives the owner of all ingress and egress from the property; then it’s a taking. If, however, the government changes the highway a half block away and eliminates access to the cross-street on which a business is located; it’s not a taking, even though it might have a significant impact on the value of the property. A gas station, for example, being more valuable when a highway is a half block away than it is if the person has to make a round trip of several blocks to get there.

Under this bill — at least if I’m reading the digest correctly; the gas station, and everyone else near the highway route change might be entitled to taxpayer dollars if they can successfully argue that the impact to their property is “inordinate.”

Rep. Arnold has introduced HB 1049 concerning public safety fees imposed on convicted offenders. At the moment, the text of the bill is unavailable; and I’m going on the text of the bill.

It would allow a county to adopt an ordinance imposing a “public safety fee.” In such a county, the court in which a criminal defendant was convicted would impose the fee as, I imagine, part of the sentence. The fee would be between $50 and $200 and would be based on the defendant’s ability to pay.

Specifies that county public safety funds may be used only to provide funding for certain public safety programs and activities, including law enforcement systems, firefighting systems, emergency medical services systems, probation departments, community corrections programs, detention facilities, and medical and health expenses for jail inmates.

Unfortunately, criminal offenders typically consume a lot more public resources than they have available individually. It is a bit of a trick bag. The fees are justifiable. But, many times, it’s just another fee the criminal defendant can’t or won’t pay. These are typically people who weren’t that great at handling life in the first place. Add a conviction and a bunch of fees and other debts onto the pile, and, like as not, they’ll just give up even if they are inclined to straighten up. On top of that; or perhaps because of that, there are state court judges who are not terribly interested in enforcing payment of such fees. So, the fees can often be notional, rather than something that’s practically collectible.

Sen. Breaux introduced SB 46 which attempts to clarify when an individual is entitled to use self-defense and when the individual is not. Or, it may be more accurate to say, it attempts to define situations that are not “self-defense” and, therefore, not situations where use of force is sanctioned under the law.

Generally speaking, government enjoys a monopoly on the use of force and only authorizes individuals to use force against others in very limited circumstances. “Self-defense” is one of those situations. But the line between self-defense and vigilantism can be a fine one.

It makes sense that we would not consider use of force to be “self-defense” if the user of force was the initial aggressor. Current law, however, permits the aggressor to, nevertheless, use force if the aggressor communicates an intent to withdraw (and does so) but the victim of the aggression continues to pursue. This bill would withdraw that exception — the policy apparently being that we don’t want to sanction aggression in the first place.

The bill also prohibits a person from using force against someone who is retreating and no longer presents an imminent threat. You also can’t withdraw, reach a place of safety, then return to the place of the attack and use force — unless the place of the attack is your house or if you are using force to protect a third person.

SB 101, introduced by Sen. Holdman – apparently a “Son of Ag-Gag” bill – would allow agricultural operations to define their own felonies.

An agricultural operation (as defined in IC 32-30-6-1) may conspicuously post a notice at the agricultural operation’s locations that lists prohibited acts that may compromise the agricultural operation’s trade secrets or operations. The notice must be posted in a manner that is likely to come to the attention of the public.

(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally commits an act at an agricultural operation that is a prohibited act listed on a notice described in subsection (a) commits a Level 6 felony.

There is no standard or review for what acts the agricultural operation can list on its notice. If they list it and you do it; you’re a felon!

Update Apparently (see story by Tony Cook for the Indy Star) this bill is set for a hearing today (Jan. 7) at approximately 3:30 following adjournment of the General Assembly for the day. This is controversial due to the still treacherous travel conditions.

With SB 60, Rep. Boots has introduced a perennial favorite concerning representation of state court judges in mandate litigation. A mandate case is typically one where the state court judge orders the county fiscal body to appropriate more money for the judge’s court. When these mandates are challenged by the county, the judge can hire a private attorney and the county has to end up footing that expense as well.

Contrast this with cases where, for example, someone sues the judge. In that case, the attorney general provides a defense. Sen. Boots proposed legislation would require the attorney general to represent judges in mandate litigation and would preclude reimbursement for expenses incurred by the judge for hiring a private attorney.

The attorney general’s office would likely be a less expensive alternative, but often the judges can find private attorneys who are more skilled litigators. So, I can see pros and cons of this one.

Sen. Taylor has introduced SB 47 which would add black history to the required social studies curriculum along with the Constitution, government systems, U.S. and Indiana history, and the Holocaust.

I’m all for kids learning black history along with women’s history, economic history, labor history, medieval history, the history of science, Native American history, religious history, and, really, history from any angle you can think of. But: a) I’m not a fan of the legislature micromanaging the curriculum; and b) the Holocaust and black history seem oddly specific when compared to government systems and state and national history.