A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

I don’t have time to comment on this particularly, but wanted to flag it for myself for future reference. Ben Skirvin at State Impact has a blog post discussing the Indiana legislators associated with the American Legislative Exchange Council — an organization in which I’m interested because it provides pre-packaged right-wing legislative proposals.

Rep. Bob Boehning is listed most prominently, but also: Rep. Dave Frizzel (national chairman), Sen. Jim Buck (tax & fiscal policy committee chair), and Rep. David Wolkins (energy, environment and agriculture committee). The blog post cites Eric Bradner’s article in the Evansville Courier Press and quotes a passage indicating that about 29 legislators are members. State Education Superintendent, Tony Bennett, gave a keynote speech earlier this year (presumably because he wouldn’t have to answer questions from teachers in that forum.)

Sen. Boots has introduced SJR 2, a proposed amendment to the Indiana constitution which would address a persistent source of conflict between courts and fiscal bodies: the judicial mandate of funds.

Specifically, it prohibits the Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and any other court created by the Indiana General Assembly from issuing “a mandate, an order, or another writ requiring the State or a political subdivision of the State to expend money for the operation of any court of the State.”

I’ve written on the subject of mandates many times before, including here. The basic rub is that county judges look, in an administrative and funding sense, like county department heads. But, they’re really state officials with authority to order county councils to fund their operation — they also have wide discretion to determine whether or not the council appropriations are sufficient. Non-judicial county department heads do not have any such authority. The judicial discretion is not unlimited, but mandates are reviewed by another part of the judiciary — so there is at least the appearance of an unlevel playing field. (Imagine if county council challenges to mandates was reviewed by the Association of Indiana Counties.)

That said, I’m always quick to add, the cases I’ve seen do not feature judges using their mandate powers in an abusive fashion; but the powers have given them an advantage over other county functions in terms of allocation of resources.

Sen. Banks’ SB 57 rewards those Hoosiers with the good sense to be born to rich families, phasing out the inheritance and estate taxes starting in 2013 and eliminating the completely by 2018.

I’ve been through this before, but I don’t see the moral justification for tackling the inheritance tax before, say, the income tax. I get the “taxation is theft” argument, even if I don’t agree with it. But, my contention is that a worker has a stronger moral claim to his or her earned wages than an heir has to the assets amassed by a decedent over his or her lifetime. So, if there is flexibility to reduce government spending and, therefore, the need for tax revenue; income taxes should be lowered before estate taxes.

Sen. Eckerty’s SB 56 would permit members of the Ball State board of trustees to be non-residents of Indiana. They would still have to be residents of the United States.

I’m not sure I see a rationale for removing the Indiana residency requirement that would not also argue for removing the U.S. residency requirement.

Sen. Eckerty’s SB 54 requires public universities exercising eminent domain to pay business owners as well as property owners. Under this legislation if the property is owned by one person and a business renting that property is owned by another person, then the university is required to pay the property owner the fair market value of the property. The university is additionally required to pay the business owner “the capitalized value of the estimated future earnings of the business.”

Sounds to me like the business owner stands to get a substantial windfall inasmuch as the university acquires only the property but not the business. The business owner – depending to some extent on the nature of the business – is then free to pocket the cash and continue doing business as usual in a new location.

Not really protecting taxpayer dollars on this one. Just taking a stab in the dark that someone around Ball State isn’t happy with the idea of the university acquiring adjacent property.

Sen. Becker’s SB 51 precludes a taxpayer or assessing official from obtaining Board of Tax Review review of an action by the county’s property tax assessment board of review if the taxpayer or assessing official did not show up at the county board of review’s hearing. However, it allows the Indiana Board of Tax Review to review the decision anyway if the absence at the county level was due to reasons that would justify a trial court setting aside a default judgment in a case before the trial court.

This makes some sense inasmuch as, if the person had showed up at the county proceeding, the person could have advocated the “right” action to the county board. If the county board got things wrong, it’s arguably because the person did not bother to advocate for the correct action.

Sen. Mrvan’s SB 28 imposes accounting requirements on the state and on political subdivisions to which restitution is owed. The government entities are required to track restitution orders issued in their favor and to report annually on the payment status of that restitution.

If a restitution obligation is more than a year in arrears, the attorney general (for the state) or prosecutor (for political subdivisions) is entitled to bring a collection action and to retain up to 10% of the amount collected as reimbursement for the cost of bringing the action. (The legislation does not say as much, but I assume the intent is for the prosecuting attorney for the district encompassing the political subdivision to bring the action — no guidance as to which prosecuting attorney if the political subdivision straddles judicial districts.)

Among other things, if a restitution order to a government entity is not complied with, after a hearing, the court issuing the order can find the debtor in contempt of court if the person has knowingly or intentionally failed to comply with the restitution order.