A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

Evansville Courier Press on Inspector General

by Leave a Comment

The Evansville Courier Press offers its opinion on the Inspector General bill. They don’t explicitly endorse the House Democrats’ perspective, but seems as if the Courier Press sees eye-to-eye with them rather than the House Republicans:

In the Senate bill that passed the House unanimously this past week, the inspector general would investigate cases, and if after six months a county prosecutor declined to file charges, the inspector general could petition the Indiana Court of Appeals to have the case moved to the inspector general or another prosecutor to try.

That’s an improvement, yet we still end up – presuming the Senate accepts the reduced prosecutorial powers – with an individual hand-picked by the governor, attempting to go over the head of an elected county prosecutor to file criminal charges. It’s better, we believe, that the inspector general’s powers be limited to investigating wrongdoing and then turning his work over to elected prosecutors.

Let the IG inspect wrongdoing, make it public, and recommend prosecution. But don’t give him prosecutorial powers if he’s going to be hand picked by the governor.

J&C: “Dead girl had short, tragic life”

by Leave a Comment

The Journal & Courier has a story with this heartbreaking introduction:

A 4-year-old girl found dead in her home Wednesday morning endured a history of abuse, neglect and family upheaval in her brief lifetime, according to court documents and a source familiar with her family.

Aiyana Emily Gauvin’s tragic life ended sometime after her stepmother put her to bed Tuesday night with her hands bound and her mouth covered with duct tape, according to a probable cause affidavit filed Thursday in Tippecanoe Superior Court 6.

The rest of the story is equally disturbing. Having a child has really changed my emotional compass on these things. Before becoming a father, I had an intellectual appreciation of these things, but no real emotional reaction. Now, any time I read about a child being mistreated, at some level, it becomes my boy who is being mistreated.

Incidentally, that’s not the only dead child in the Journal & Courier today. According to this story, a deaf woman who is charged with neglect of a dependent in the January 2004 death of her 18-month-old son made an initial court appearance Thursday, four days after giving birth to another child. She is charged with Class A felony neglect in the Jan. 30, 2004, death of her younger son, Evin W. Norris, who was found in a bathtub of scalding water in the family home in Monon.

HB 1141 – Courts

by Leave a Comment

Engrossed Version, House Bill 1141:

Creates one new superior court in Dearborn County, DeKalb County, Hamilton County, Howard County, Montgomery County, and Vigo County, and creates two new superior courts in Hendricks County. Establishes a magistrate in Madison County. Provides that the new superior courts in Dearborn County, DeKalb County, Montgomery County, and Vigo County are created on January 1, 2006, the new superior court in Howard county is created on January 6, 2006, and the new courts in Hendricks County and Hamilton County are created on January 1, 2007. Allows the existing superior courts in Hendricks County to appoint a magistrate to serve until January 1, 2007. Abolishes the DeKalb County small claims referee. Makes the superior courts in Howard County standard superior courts.

This bill just cleared committee. I’ve got to say, I got in just under the wire on this one. I defended a case where a complaint was inadvertently filed in the Montgomery County Court plenary docket (jurisdiction $10,000). By the time I figured out my client was liable for at least $10,000 and that it was before the County Court, I filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asking for entry of judgment in the amount of $10,000 and for dismissal of any remaining claim as beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. The statute of limitations had passed on the plaintiff’s claim and Transfer to Superior Court or Circuit court was problematic. The uncertainty this created encouraged both sides to get serious about negotiations, and we managed to settle. If this bill had been further along, I might still be litigating the case and preparing to be the first civil jury case in excess of $10,000 before the Montgomery Superior Court 2. Wow, that was a long, boring story. Sorry for wasting your time.

SB 483 – Voter Identification

by 1 Comment

Senate Bill 0483 requiring Hoosiers to produce state or federally issued photo ID before being permitted to exercise their right to vote passed Second Reading in the House. The House Republicans voted against:

  • a provision that would have allowed a voter, in lieu of a photo ID, to sign an affidavit which would subject them to perjury prosecution if they were voting fraudulently and would have subjected absentee voters to the same ID reqirements if they were casting their vote in front of an absentee voter board or voting absentee at the Clerk’s office.
  • a provision that would have required a precinct election board who prevented a Hoosier from exercising their right to vote for failure to produce identification to provide the voter with information advising the voter of 1) the permissible forms of identification; 2) the requirements for having the provisional ballot counted; 3) contact information for the circuit court clerk, the voter’s senator and representative, the toll-free number staffed by the election division, and the electiond division’s web-site.
  • a provision requiring the secretary of state, before each election, to send notice of the identification requirements for voting to each person who registered to vote after the most recent primary or general election.

    One gets the idea that they might not be unhappy with a situation like Ohio’s 2004 election where lots of voters got held up in line, got turned away, and folks didn’t have a real clear idea of how to make things right. Both parties might have an interest in making sure their constituents are better informed and more likely to vote absentee than the constituents of the other party.

    • Flags and Bullying (SB 332 & SB 285)

    by Leave a Comment

    The House Committee on Education considered two bills which should probably be rolled together. Senate Bill 0332 Requires a United States flag to be displayed in each classroom of a school corporation and requires a school corporation to provide a daily opportunity for students to voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Provides an exemption for students who choose (or whose parents choose for them) not to participate in the Pledge. SB 285 defines “bullying”, and requires a school corporation to adopt rules to prohibit bullying.

    I say the two bills are related because you know what’s going to happen to a kid who tells the class he won’t say the pledge because his mommy told him not to. I figure the legislature has enough to do without trying to micromanage our schools. They ought to worry less about this trivia and more about ways in which the state can afford to give the schools enough money to afford top-flight math and science teachers (perhaps with some of the money earmarked for buying flags and defending against First Amendment flag and pledge lawsuits.)

    Indy Star Opinion on SJR 7

    by Leave a Comment

    The Indy Star Editorial Board has what I regard as a sensible position on SJR 7 the proposed Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment entitled Don’t close door on civil unions. The Indianapolis Star reasons:

    The proposal as it now stands goes too far — not only banning same-sex marriages but also closing off even the possibility of civil unions in the future.

    Civil unions do not exist in Indiana, and may never be implemented here. But current legislators shouldn’t block the elected leaders who will one day follow them from even considering such an accommodation. . . . [W]hen determining what language to include in the state Constitution, moderation is in order. The House should amend SJR7 to keep open the possibility of civil unions.

    Now, to start with, I don’t have any particular love for SJR 7 since I don’t have any particular objection to homosexuals being allowed to marry. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.” Since the marriage of a homosexual couple neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, I don’t regard it as any of my business. However, it’s also not a burning issue with me. There are a lot of problems in the world that are likely to affect me and my family directly. Gay marriage isn’t one of them. (Unless, of course, one of my children were to turn out to be gay. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”) But, I recognize that marriage as a civil institution is hopelessly intertwined with marriage as a religious institution. I also recognize that people are passionate, sincere, and not entirely rational about their religious beliefs such that it might be hard for them not to see civil marriage of homosexuals as an affront to their religious institution.

    So, in my mind, civil unions are a viable option. Certainly not acceptable to certain segments of our society, but overall, a good compromise on a divisive issue. There are some legal benefits to marriage from which there are no rational reasons to exclude a gay couple. I won’t be leading the charge. But, in a couple of decades when Indiana sees that marriage hasn’t been destroyed as an institution in Vermont, as the doomsayers seem to predict, perhaps as those of us now under 35 get long in the tooth and continue to fail to see what the big deal is, we will want the freedom to offer a compromise solution. Or, if no solution is available, maybe we’ll see fit to repeal the amendment altogether.

    Senate Action 3/15/05

    by Leave a Comment

  • House Bill 1262 – Bankruptcy exemptions. Raises the various bankruptcy exemptions. Requires the department of financial institutions to adjust exemption amounts every six years beginning in 2010. (See here for details. Passed 48-0.
  • HB 1288 Title 20 recodification. Recodifies Title 20 concerning elementary and secondary education to reorganize and restate the law without substantive change. Passed 49-0.
  • HB 1314 Postsecondary program for high school students. Eliminates the requirement of approval from a school superintendent and a representative of a school corporation for a high school student to enroll in the postsecondary enrollment program. Requires a school corporation and a postsecondary institution to enter into a contract concerning credits for a student attending the postsecondary institution while the student is also attending secondary school. Passed 49-0.

    • Greenspan ducks and weaves on deficits

    by Leave a Comment

    As a fiscal conservative, I have to take Alan Greenspan to task for his testimony before the Senate, at least as it was reported in the New York Times, when he was charged with being complicit in the return of large deficits.

    Greenspan has come under fire for his support of Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security. The premise for Bush’s plan is that there is a Social Security crisis because expenditures will exceed income in 2018 or thereabouts. That really isn’t a crisis for Social Security because it has a stockpile of Treasury Bills it’s been buying with the surplus revenues received through Social Security payroll taxes over the years.

    That could be a problem for the federal government when Social Security cashes in on the Treasury Bills. The reason the federal government is in bad shape is because of the rampant deficit spending in which it has engaged for the past 25 years, with a brief respite in the second half of the 90s. The return to deficit spending over the past 5 years is due in good measure to the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts were greenlighted by Greenspan. That Greenspan would participate in trying to disguise the federal general fund’s problems as a Social Security problem is particularly repugnant since Greenspan, during the Reagan years, was responsible for increasing the payroll taxes as a way to make Social Security fiscally solvent.

    Now, consider what a remarkable bait and switch Greenspan would have pulled off if Social Security benefits are reduced because of Bush’s talk of a crisis:

  • 1986 1983 or thereabouts, Greenspan jacks up Social Security taxes which fall harder on lower incomes than do taxes for the general fund;
  • Through the 80s and early 90s and again in the 00s, the general fund borrows extensively from Social Security reserves;
  • The borrowing accelerates dramatically in the early 00s when Greenspan greenlights Bush’s tax cuts which are enjoyed disproportionately by the extremely wealthy;
  • Greenspan helps engineer a change to Social Security which stops Social Security from calling due all of the money borrowed by the general fund.

    What has just happened if that comes to pass? Greenspan has helped use the more regressive Social Security taxes to pay for Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy. Quite a trick.

    Now, on Greenspan’s defense for greenlighting the Bush tax cuts:

    he supported Mr. Bush’s tax cuts because almost all budget analysts were forecasting trillions of dollars in surpluses that never materialized.

    As events turned out, federal deficits rose as tax revenues plunged for three years in a row and spending grew on everything from war costs in Afghanistan and Iraq to education and homeland security. What was expected to be a $5.6 trillion surplus by 2011 is now expected to be at least a $4 trillion deficit by 2015 if Mr. Bush’s tax cuts are made permanent.

    “We were confronted at the time with an almost universal expectation amongst experts that we were dealing with a very large surplus for which there seemed to be no end,” Mr. Greenspan told members of the Senate Select Committee on Aging.

    Why that’s just hogwash. It was pretty clear by 2001 that the dotcoms were tanking. Throughout the 2000 Presidential Campaign, Bush repeatedly said that the economy was about to falter.

    I may be bragging, but I knew deficit spending was just around the corner. And Greenspan’s presumably smarter than I am. I probably can’t lay this one at Greenspan’s feet, but I do recall that a proposal to amend the tax cut legislation was voted down that would have added a trigger removing the tax cuts if deficits returned. So the tax cut proponents were quite cognizant of the likelihood of deficit spending being caused by those tax cuts.

    I’m afraid I tend to go on and on about deficit spending. For at least the past 15 years, it’s been my #1 political concern. I vote for the candidate that, in my opinion, is most likely to pay down the debt. That’s why I voted for Perot in ’92 and ’96 (silly as it seems now). From my perspective, the Boomers are mortgaging GenX’s future, and that’s simply unacceptable.

    • Inspector General Bill passes House

    by Leave a Comment

    The Associated Press is reporting that the Inspector General bill has passed 98-0. Should be interesting to see what the Senate thinks of this thing. Of course, the only time they’ll get to consider it is in Conference Committee.

    And, is it just me, or are AP stories on Indiana politics consistently less informative than stories from local reporters? (Probably it’s my own bias and it’s one of our local reporters writing for the AP.)