ILNews

Shake-up of study committees meant to streamline process

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The internal changes to the Indiana Legislature’s interim study committee structure are not readily visible, but majority and minority leaders are optimistic the alterations will make the process more efficient and control the workload.

Under key provisions of a bill approved during the 2014 session of the Indiana General Assembly, the number of topics has been reduced and the Legislative Council has more control over what issues are studied.

The bill also alters the composition of the committees. Legislators now appointed to the interim committees will be drawn from the standing committees that review similar topics during the session. Any lay members appointed now must be authorized by the Legislative Council.

bosma-brian-mug Bosma

“First of all, I think it’s going to streamline the process of appointing the committees,” Indiana Speaker of the House Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said of the change in structure. “It has already streamlined the process of getting agreed upon topics before the committees.”

Working under Senate Enrolled Act 80, the Legislative Council met May 14 and unanimously approved the resolution that assigned about 37 topics to 15 interim study committees.

The Personnel Subcommittee of the Legislative Council sifted through about 90 topics submitted by legislators for further review by the interim committees. Bosma emphasized the selection process was bipartisan and that every member of the subcommittee had topic proposals rejected.

Interim study committees exist to examine matters that come before the General Assembly but are too complex to handle in a single legislative session. The committees can study the issues and make reports as well as recommendations which the Legislature can then use.

However, some legislators felt the number of interim committees and topics had become too unwieldy. As Bosma explained, upwards of 70 topics were being assigned and the committees did not have enough time to adequately study them.

The purpose of the bill “was really to organize the topics in a reasonable fashion,” Bosma said. “It seemed like the fall-back position for every unsuccessful initiative was to require a study by the interim study committee and that’s what we said last year we were going to get away from.”

Steele Steele

Speaking after the May 14 meeting, key members of the Legislative Council were supportive of the changes.

“Well, I’m a very positive person and I don’t see alligators in mud puddles,” said Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford. “So I will not express any concern as of yet. If it turns out that there’s something wrong there, then I’ll be the first to be yelling about it.”

Committee members

The new bill enables the Senate president and the House speaker to each appoint four members from the Legislature to every committee while the minority leaders in both chambers can each name three members.

In addition, only the Legislative Council can authorize the addition of individuals who are not state representatives or senators. Lay members will be a part of four committees including the Interim Study Committee on Corrections & Criminal Code and the Interim Study Committee on Courts & Judiciary.

Senate Democratic Leader Tim Lanane acknowledged the number of lay people involved in the interim study process will probably be reduced. Not every committee previously had non-legislative members but some had as many as 15 which, the Anderson Democrat said, was too much.

“So we did reduce the numbers, but we did, I think, want to preserve that support and have lay members involved in certain committees,” Lanane said.

The Indiana Judges Association had asked the Legislative Council to retain the two judicial members who had been on the former Commission on Courts and put them on the courts and judiciary interim committee.

“We asked for the chief justice and a trial court judge to be members of the committee,” said IJA President John Pera of Lake Superior Court. “We think it is important if you’re going to look at and make recommendations about the judiciary, then judges should be allowed to provide input.”

Bosma noted lay persons will not be shut out of the process. If they are not members of an interim committee, they can still testify and let the policymakers hear their voice.

Preapproval

The interim study committee structure bill, authored by Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, R-Fort Wayne, and sponsored in the House of Representatives by Bosma, established 17 committees under broad categories like agriculture and natural resources, environmental affairs, government and public health, behavioral health, and human services.

Lanane does not anticipate problems under the new committee structure.

“I think the Senate bill made some positive changes just in terms of how administratively do we establish the committees and we process the committees,” he said. “But I don’t think it disrupts what I think is the very important work of the interim study committees.”

Many of the topics assigned for the upcoming interim session arose from legislation that was considered during the 2014 Legislature. Among the committees and their topics are:

• Interim Study Committee on Corrections & Criminal Code: autism spectrum disorders of defendants, juvenile justice issues and changes to the criminal code;

• Interim Study Committee on Courts & Judiciary: digital privacy, nonparty defense, adoption and requests for new courts or changes in the jurisdiction of existing courts;

lanane Lanane

• Interim Study Committee on Education: pre-kindergarten and student discipline including the suspension, expulsion or exclusion of a student from school.

The chairs of the study committee will not be able to introduce additional topics without the approval of the Legislative Council’s Personnel Subcommittee. Bosma reiterated this provision is meant to control the number of topics. Without the preapproval process, he said, the concern is the issues not assigned would be submitted directly to the chairs of the committees to pick up.

During the 2013 interim session, Steele’s Commission on Courts had been assigned the sole topic of reviewing the need for a new magistrate in Vanderburgh Circuit Court, but he filled the agenda with additional topics regarding bail bonds and the use of psychiatrists.

Although he will now have to get thumbs up before assigning new topics, Steele does not believe he will have a problem getting preapproval of any topic he wants to study.

If changes need to be made to the new interim committee structure, Bosma is confident the legislative leaders will make adjustments on a bipartisan basis.

“This is a new process for all of us,” Bosma said, “so we’ll let it shake out a little bit, put a few miles on it and see if the tires need to be rotated.”•

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. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT