ILNews

General Assembly ready for new session's business

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

With a new legislative session on the horizon, the Indiana General Assembly is going to be one to watch as it likely tackles a multitude of issues influencing the state’s legal community.

Lawmakers returned Nov. 16 for the mostly celebratory Organization Day, kicking off the session that means a return to power for Republicans in the House of Representatives and supermajority for that party in the Senate. Two lawyer-legislators will be leading those houses and setting the agenda while deciding what bills will make it to the respective floors for a vote.
 

long-david-mug Long

In the Senate, President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, was again chosen to head his party’s 37-13 supermajority, meaning Republicans will be able to conduct business without any Democrats being present.

In the House, the Republicans took a 60-40 majority and Indianapolis lawyer-legislator Rep. Brian Bosma regained the position of house speaker that he’d held in 2005 and 2006. Democrats have controlled the House for the past four years.

Both the House and Senate opened with a legislative prayer invoking Jesus Christ, an issue that had sparked a federal lawsuit in 2005 when Bosma last held the speaker seat. An Indianapolis judge ruled that historic practice wasn’t constitutional, but the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed the suit on procedural grounds without addressing the merits. The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana continues to watch the issue, but no more suits have been filed.


bosma-brian-mug Bosma

Typically, Indiana’s Secretary of State calls each house to order. But Secretary of State and Congressman-elect Todd Rokita found himself in Washington, D.C., for new member orientation on organization day, paving the way for Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard to assume those duties. State law dictates that the chief justice should step in if the secretary of state is unavailable, though it has never happened in Indiana before.

“Normally, this is the moment when the secretary of state introduces the chief justice,” he said, garnering laughter and a standing ovation. “You didn’t have to do that. I just invite you to raise your hand and repeat after me.”

The chief justice administered the oaths to lawmakers, and in the House Bosma publicly outlined his priorities for the coming budget-setting session. He said kitchen-table analysis was needed in a time when state revenues are at 2005 levels, and Bosma encouraged more transparency in state government by promising that all House committee meetings would be broadcast online, that financial restraint and educational protections would be priorities, and he mentioned that redistricting will be a priority.

Bosma also encouraged bipartisanship and took action that he described as a first for the state – naming two Democrats to fill committee chair slots that would ordinarily go to the majority party. He named Rep. Steve Stemler, D-Jeffersonville, to chair the House Commerce, Small Business and Economic Development Committee; and named Rep. Chet Dobis, D-Merrillville, to lead a new government reduction committee that is tasked with identifying business regulations, state statutes, and agencies and commissions Indiana could do without.

That committee could not only examine state statutes that govern how Indiana attorneys practice law and the state’s judges interpret them, but it could also put more attention on reforms that have been outlined since the Kernan-Shepard report was released in 2007. One of those issues has been court reform, which the Hoosier judiciary supports in order to create more simplicity in how courts operate statewide. Condensing the number of city or town courts and changing jurisdictions of Circuit and Superior courts may be an issue on the committee’s agenda.

Earlier this fall, the Commission on Courts supported the concept of standardizing state trial court jurisdictions but didn’t draft any legislative language. The change would make reassigning workload between courts easier and wouldn’t require judges to seek proposed legislative changes for new judicial resources, according to Marion Superior Judge Mark Stoner, who has been a part of a larger court reform plan addressing this issue. If centralized state funding for trial courts materializes in the future, this would be a step toward easing into that, he said. That legislative proposal came along with another that the commission supported by a 7-1 vote (with Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, opposed) - recommending that all city and town court judges be attorneys starting with 2011 elections.

The Indiana State Bar Association and other bar associations say they will continue watching judicial selection, although no recommendations or proposed legislation have been made thus far this year, as well as keeping tabs on a possible legal services tax – something that’s been pondered in past years and might be more popular as lawmakers focus on budget-setting in the throes of a battered economy.

Attention will likely focus on the Judicial Automation and Technology Committee as it has in recent years, specifically as that committee considers the costs of a statewide case management system for all 92 counties. That proposal has been making progress since late 2007. The Commission on Courts approved draft legislation that would increase the Automated Record-keeping Fee that largely pays for the Odyssey system’s implementation from the current $7 to $10 beginning July 1, 2011, and then lowering it back to the existing level June 30, 2015. The commission voted 7-1 to recommend the proposal to legislators, which it has done in the past but has failed to get further support.

The Indiana Attorney General’s Office also has some key topics on its legislative radar that have financial and economic implications, such as transparency in local economic development agreements regarding casino revenue and issues involving mortgage foreclosure and Medicaid fraud.

Though legislators return to the day-to-day Statehouse work on Jan. 5, they can now introduce legislation for consideration in the coming session. Bosma has capped the number of bills each legislator can sponsor at 10.

“If you can’t forward your legislative agenda with a 10-bill limit in the long session, then maybe your agenda is too long,” Bosma said.

This is a long budget-setting session with lawmakers shooting to finish the state’s business by the end of April, in order to avoid a special session as was the case in 2009.•

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT