General Assembly’s website looks nice, but is troublesome

January 6, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

I alluded in my blog Friday to the redesign of the Indiana General Assembly’s website. I have high hopes for the site, as it seems like it will make following the Legislature easier. But right now, it’s got some kinks to work out.

I hoped those kinks would have been worked out before the legislators reconvened for the 2014 short session. During the session, we at Indiana Lawyer visit the General Assembly’s website daily to keep up on legislation and committee hearings. Under the old site, you could search for bills by legislator or subject. You will be able to do that on the new site – eventually. Those options are there, but they are not working, or working to their full potential. Click on “By Legislator” and you get a haphazard listing of legislators. There seems to be no rhyme or reason as to why Rep. Casey Cox is listed first, followed by Sens. Lonnie Randolph, Mark Stoops, Karen Tallian, etc. The dropdown box that allows you to search specific representatives is listed in alphabetical order by last name, so that helps.

Right now, nothing shows up under the “By Subject” listing, a helpful tool for those seeking to find bills of interest to the legal community, such as on court functions, criminal laws or changes to probate law.

Searching for bills is also problematic. Type “trust” in the generic search bar, and you get 792 results, which you can whittle down on the left side to take you to the bills this session that contain the word trust. But trying to use the “Bills” tab of the search bar renders no results for the word trust.

I’m looking forward to what the new website will be, as it will make keeping up with the General Assembly easier. I just hope that the site reaches its full potential before the session is over.

You can check out the redesign site at http://iga.in.gov .
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT