A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Indy Star article entitled Inspector general post irks county prosecutors, describes committee consideration of HB 1002 which does a number of things with regard to state ethics and the creation of an inspector general. However, the focus of the article, and apparently of the testimony before the House Government and Regulatory Reform Committee focused on:

a section of the bill that would give Daniels power to personally sign off on criminal investigations by the inspector general if local prosecutors fail to act. Prosecutors say the measure would give Daniels’ inspector general, David Thomas, the former Clay County prosecutor, more power than elected prosecutors. For instance, prosecutors must go through judges to subpoena records, compel testimony and impanel grand juries, but as the bill stands the inspector general would not. “In some ways, this creates a super prosecutor,” said Shelby County Prosecutor Kent Apsley, speaking on behalf of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Association.

Seems to me that Indianapolis already has more power over the state than it really needs. I don’t mind the idea of having some kind of check and balance to a prosecutor’s discretion in appropriate circumstances (other than the already significant check & balance of the ballot box), but giving yet more power to the Governor’s office isn’t the answer. I think we’re seeing a pattern in Gov. Daniels’ actions of trying to gather more power to himself. Maybe it’s something he sees as a means to accomplish noble ends, but Daniels is apparently trying to run the government like one of his corporations. Getting rid of employees who might not be loyal to him. Wholesale disbanding of commissions and boards and making their power revert to the Governor’s office. Having a special prosecutor in his pocket. Perhaps the Governor doesn’t want to engage in the tedious bargaining and deal making that is the hallmark of democratic government. But, that’s the gig he signed up for. State government isn’t a corporation.

Senate Bill 0078 – A bill proposing to change some of the wage payment statute actually failed. I guess I expect a bill to either die before it gets to committee or die at the end of a legislative calendar period. If the Author doesn’t have the votes, they usually won’t call it up for a vote. But SB 78 failed 25 – 24. You need 26 to pass.

House Bill 1198:

Requires schools to report the reasons for student suspensions and expulsions to the department of education. Authorizes an agreement for court assisted resolution of suspension and expulsion cases between a court having juvenile jurisdiction and a school corporation. Provides that the court shall either supervise the student or order the supervision of the student. Provides that the court and the school corporation may jointly determine which violations leading to suspension or expulsion are eligible for referral to the court. Provides that the school corporation and the court shall determine how the costs of supervising a student under the agreement shall be paid. Allows the school corporation to disclose the education records of a student who has been suspended or expelled to a court. Provides that (1)a student’s appearance in court shall not be used against the student, the student’s parent, or guardian in any subsequent court proceeding, (2) all records of a student’s court appearance shall be expunged upon the student’s completion of the court assisted resolution of suspension and expulsion program, and (3) a parent , guardian, or legal counsel has the right to be present during the student’s court appearance.

This passed the House 94-0. Interesting. On the one hand, it seems to give schools access to a fair broker when dealing with prolem children. That might go a long way toward dispute resolution where parents are hostile or feel like their kid isn’t getting a fair hearing. On the other hand, the courts have enough to do, and this will add extra expense to local government.

House Bill 1112:

Allows a person convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated with two prior unrelated convictions to be placed directly in a community corrections program if: (1) the person is required to serve the nonsuspendible part of the person’s sentence in a work release program or a program that uses electronic monitoring as part of the person’s supervision; and (2) the person participates in a court approved substance abuse program.

Placement in community corrections by the court in this fashion is a tool that’s already available to judges with respect to certain felonies and misdemeanors where suspension of the sentence is not an option.

This bill passed the House 96-0 and has moved to the Senate where it is being sponsored by Senators Long and Lanane.

I think we have our first law of the year. House Bill 1021 Lending acts and practices. Specifies that a reference in Indiana’s home loan practices law to rescission rights granted for a violation of law refers only to a violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act. Signed by the Governor today.

House Bill 1629 would allow a political subdivision, at its discretion, to adopt a biennial budget rather than an annual budget. If I’m reading it correctly, the subdivision could simply adopt an annual budget, it could adopt a biennial budget and make no changes the second year, or it could adopt a biennial budget and, if there was a need, revise the second year’s budget. If it made a biennial budget and stuck with it, citizen’s ability to challenge and review by the state board of accounts would be limited.

This bill is the second one in which I’ve seen this language:

The legislative services agency shall prepare legislation for introduction in the 2006 regular session of the general assembly to organize and correct statutes affected by this act.

When I worked at LSA, I don’t recall this kind of thing being permitted. Maybe it’s just translation for “this bill is a dog that won’t pass and we shouldn’t waste the paper going through all the code sections affected if it’s just going to die.” But, this bill just passed the House 95-0. A lot of times, amending the small technical stuff reveals larger problems with the concept. I don’t think it should be put off until after the legislature has already committed to the concept. You read the fine print before you sign.

Introduced Version, Senate Bill 0625 — This ambitious bit of legislation from Sen. Murray Clark eliminates most boards & commissions and transfers their power directly to the Governor unless the Governor, in his wisdom, declines the board or commission’s power.

Just poking around through the list, I see that it gets rid of county boards of public works and safety, county redevelopment commissions, and county boards of zoning appeals among many, many, many others.

This is just lazy. Sen. Clark gets to walk into LSA say, “Hey, I want a bill that gets rid of all boards and commissions.” How does the bill propose that we do the hard work of figuring out which boards and commissions ought to stay? You guessed it. We create another commission. That’s right, the bill creates the government efficiency commission.

The Indy Star has an article entitled Bill would raise state speed limit. It comments on SB 217 which would raise the speed limit on Interstates from 65-70 and from 60 to 65 for trucks. My prior post on the subject.

The article suggests that the bill has more momentum than in years past. Apparently it passed the House in 2002 51-46 but didn’t get a hearing in the Senate. This year it will get a hearing in the Senate. Apparently police and insurance interests are the main opponents. Lots of ordinary citizens, yours truly included, would like to drive faster on the open highway.

I’m a little confused by this sentence in the article: “The bill doesn’t specify what types of vehicles or which locations would be affected.” Actually, it does. The bill states:

A person may not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of the following maximum limits:
(1) Thirty (30) miles per hour in an urban district.
(2) Fifty-five (55) miles per hour, except as provided in subdivisions (1), (3), and (4).
(3) Seventy (70) miles per hour on a highway on the national system of interstate and defense highways located outside of an urbanized area (as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101) with a population of at least fifty thousand (50,000), except as provided in subdivision (4).
(4) Sixty-five (65) miles per hour for a vehicle (other than a bus) having a declared gross weight greater than twenty-six thousand (26,000) pounds on a highway on the national system of interstate and defense highways located outside an urbanized area (as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101) with a population of at least fifty thousand (50,000).
(5) Fifteen (15) miles per hour in an alley.