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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT