A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Hope I don’t have to get into a turf war with the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette. In this article, they mention July’s Indiana Register and take a crack at the rule concerning the giant African land snail which, of course, I already made fun of.

The Lafayette Journal & Courier has an editorial referencing a property tax study done by the Legislative Services Agency and everybody’s favorite economist, Larry DeBoer. (Discussed here. Their take: so what. Taxes are going to have to go up this year because of the General Assembly’s budget. And, because the General Assembly passed the buck, the tax raises are going to have to be done at the local level.

That makes me think, if state and federal taxes had gone down some, I wouldn’t mind the county taxes going up. The more local the tax, the less I resent it. But, of course the federal income tax is still a huge part of our collective tax burden and the benefits we receive from it are usually the most indirect (or almost non-existent: see Iraq.)

According to the South Bend Tribune, SouthBendTribune.com: Family priorities keep Roemer from Senate run.

Roemer’s decision ended speculation that began more than a month ago when a statewide Democratic poll indicated that, with a sufficient increase in Roemer’s name identification, he could come close in a matchup with Lugar.

A second poll, taken by the Lugar campaign in mid-June, indicated that Roemer clearly does not have that name recognition now, and would be trounced by Lugar in a head-to-head campaign.

“We would have run a positive race,” said Roemer, adding that had he decided to run he would have “talked about new ideas about what government should be doing to reform things,” rather than what Washington doesn’t do.

Questions in both of the polls indicated that the majority of Hoosiers believe the nation is on the wrong track.

Roemer said he believes the poll finding indicated that there is a need for change in the air and a “disconnect and discontent with Washington” by the American people.

It would have been a positive race that would have been both interesting and intriguing, Roemer said.

The Indy Star has an article entitled Powerful panel on education falls silent, discussing the fact that the education roundtable has not met since January. It’s apparently a model used by other states — not very often Indiana is on the cutting edge of something — and is credited with “some of the biggest leaps in state education reform, including last fall’s bid for tougher high school graduation requirements.” The Star mentions Daniels’ record on education includes:

• A January freeze on school construction projects, whose costs are steeper than the national average. He later replaced the moratorium with strict building guidelines.

• Sweeping education proposals such as a plan for taxpayer-supported vouchers for private schools and a bid to move Indiana’s state test from the fall to the spring. Both measures failed in the Statehouse.

• A state budget that critics say shortchanges schools so much that many districts will lay off teachers, boost class sizes and raise property taxes.

The Star includes a quote from Micah Clark, roundtable member and follower of the teachings of Brother Dobson:

“I’m not the type of person who thinks once you create a government panel it has to go on forever,” said Micah Clark, director of the American Family Association of Indiana. “I do think the roundtable has an importance, but I also think the governor’s quite capable of getting things done with his own powers.” I doubt Mr. Clark will ever be a big supporter of Indiana’s educational infrastructure until it endorsing that evolution nonsense.

I don’t get the idea that Governor Daniels is ready to go the Kansas route of taking evolution out of the state’s science curriculum. But, I guess guys like Clark can hope.

There is an article by Niki Kelly in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette entitled Tax credits eased pain of change and a similar article by Michele McNeil in the Indianapolis Star entitled, Surprise! Property Taxes Fell for Most. The stories are based on a report by the Legislative Services Agency and everybody’s favorite economist, Larry DeBoer.

The report – given by the Legislative Services Agency and Purdue University Professor Larry DeBoer – examined how tax bills shifted between classes of property as well as what the shift would have looked like if lawmakers had not added $800 million in property tax relief.

“People who see tax decreases don’t say much while people who see tax increases do,” said DeBoer, referring to angry citizens who decried the reassessment. “The reality is a majority of homeowners in Indiana got tax cuts after reassessment and restructuring.”

The 2002 reassessment saw the state move to a more market-based tax value system, as opposed to the former system that depreciated older homes while assessing business property much closer to the market value than residential.

That is why businesses saw little or no increase under the new system and residential homes felt the brunt of the shift.

Tax bills for agricultural land and rental properties went up pretty significantly, 5.7% and 11% respectively.

When studying comparable homesteads – or properties that did not change due to additions or major renovations – almost 58 percent of Indiana homeowners saw a decrease in their tax bill while 42.5 percent saw increases.

Overall, just 5.3 percent saw increases of 100 percent or more and the average change was a $4 savings statewide.

The news would have been far worse if legislators hadn’t passed a restructuring package in a 2002 special session that largely targeted residential homesteads.

According to DeBoer, if the General Assembly had done nothing, homeowners’ bills would have gone up an estimated 51.2 percent and agricultural bills would have jumped more than 20 percent.

“In case there are any homeowners who think tax restructuring didn’t matter, I think we can disabuse them of this notion,” DeBoer said.

Early predictions that average residential tax bills would go up 33 percent were fairly accurate when discounting an unusual 10.6 percent growth in tax levies that year.

Without that – and without restructuring – tax bills would have gone up 35.4 percent.

The June 16, 2005 minutes of the Legislative Council are available. Probably only of interest to . . . well, me. One part I found of particular interest had to do with the move to have the Legislative Services Agency print the bills in-house. Prior to that move, the printing had been outsourced and was done for a fairly steep price. The high price (something like $0.092 per page) was compounded by the huge volume of printing done in the legislative process. There was some pressure to keep the printing in the hands of the particular vendor. Ostensibly the concern was that LSA couldn’t keep the error rate as low as the outside vendor. However, there were rumors that the vendor was very well connected politically. And, the low error rate the vendor was able to provide was almost entirely due to the quality of the product sent from LSA over to the vendor. (At this point, I must disclose a screamingly pro-LSA bias on the part of your author.)

Anyway, I played a small part in moving the printing in-house. But, the credit belongs to those long-time employees of the Office of Code Revision in the Legislative Services Agency. According to the minutes:

VII. Five year report on LSA’s in-house printing program.

Mr. Sachtleben explained the three goals of the program:
(1) To maintain or improve on the quality of the products;
(2) to maintain or improve on the quality of the products without asking the House and Senate to change their proceedings; and
(3) To have significant savings.
Mr. Sachtleben then proceeded to explain how the goals had been met. First, the error rate of the products had been reduced to one-sixth of what it had been when going through an outside source, and the appearance of the product was as good as it had been in the past. Second, the error rate was reduced and the appearance was maintained without asking the House or Senate to change any of their procedures. Third, the in-house printing program has permitted a two-thirds reduction in printing appropriations.

(emphasis added).

Once again, of interest only to me perhaps, is the history of the in-house printing project. Fortunately, LSA keeps archives of the Legislative Council minutes. At the June 8, 1998 meeting, we find the following discussion:

IN-HOUSE COMPOSITION OF LEGISLATIVE BILLS: DISCUSSION ITEM
The Chairman asked Mr. Sachtleben to summarize the present printing contract and procedures used for legislative bills. Mr. Sachtleben noted that for many years the Legislative Council had contracted with a private printer to compose and photocopy the bills. The cost of that contract is about $.095 per page. Mr. Sachtleben reported that the LSA has for several years used private and public photocopying firms to mass duplicate legislative bills at a cost of $0.02 per page. Accordingly, the “composition” aspect of the private printing contract costs about $0.07 per page. Mr. Sachtleben said that he was bringing this matter to the attention of the Council in order to permit an evaluation of whether the composition of legislative bills could and/or should be done in-house. Mr. Sachtleben discussed the cost estimates and projected savings that such a move might entail, and noted the training, space, and logistical problems that would need to be addressed if any changes were made.

. . .

Senator Harrison asked whether the merging of amendments and committee reports would be part of the in-house duties. In reply to this question, and another from Senator Miller, Mr. Sachtleben discussed a computer program that was developed for the LSA this year that automatically merges about 80% of the commands used in amendments and committee reports. Senator Harrison asked about the timing of the proofreading of bills. Mr. Sachtleben explained that under the current system the bills are proofread after they have been distributed onto members’ desks.

Senator Harrison then asked whether a private photocopying company could be found that could perform under the late evening and tight deadline schedule dictated by the House and Senate processes. Carolyn Tinkle, Principal Secretary of the Senate, answered that the state print shop and private companies should be able to perform under a contract up to the specifications of the General Assembly.

In response to Senator Harrison’s question, Mr. Sachtleben noted that additional space would be needed if the bills were to be composed in-house.

At the August 4, 1998 meeting we again see Sen. Harrison leading the skeptics:

DISCUSSION OF PRINTING OF LEGISLATIVE BILLS

The Chairman announced that the agenda item concerning the printing of legislative bills would be postponed until the September meeting of the Council. A discussion followed concerning various aspects of Senator Harrison’s question as to whether to renew the Graphics contract pursuant to an offer letter that had been received from the vendor in May. This offer (to extend the original three year contract by one year) must be acted upon by October 31, 1998. A discussion was held concerning the legal relationship between the vendor and the Council, including the impact of the vendor’s taking of certain action in anticipation of the Council’s extension of the printing contract.

Senator Garton said that he did not see any legal obligation, but felt that at this time the Senate staff has some concerns that should be discussed. He also stated that while he anticipates the eventual transition to in-house composition, it would be his preference to make the change during a short session of the General Assembly.

At the September 21, 1998 meeting, Representative Kruzan (now the honorable mayor of Bloomington) reported a compromise that weaned the private vendor off of the printing contract:

REPORT OF THE DATA PROCESSING SUBCOMMITTEE CONCERNING INHOUSE COMPOSITION OF BILLS

The Chairman called upon Representative Kruzan to report on the two meetings and the recomendation of the Subcommittee (Proposed LCR 98-11A). Representative Kruzan stated that the Subcommittee had agreed that a transition from the private printer to the LSA was necessary. Under LCR 98-11A, Graphics, Ltd. would continue to print all legislative bills except for the “reprints” (which would be composed by the LSA and mass duplicated under a private contract). In addition, Graphics would agree to stand ready to print the reprinted bills if the LSA was unable to do so.

The issue was put to rest (as far as the Legislative Council’s involvement) until 1999. At the July 22, 1999 Council meeting, we see Sen. Harrison continuing to be the skeptic:

The Chairman called on Senator Harrison to report on the activities of the Legislative Council’s Data Processing Subcommittee which had met prior to the full Council meeting. Senator Harrison reviewed the Council’s decision last year to establish a pilot program under which the LSA would print all “reprinted” bills (i.e. the printing on yellow paper that occurs whenever a bill is amended on the floor of the House or Senate). Senator Harrison discussed the problems that were encountered during the pilot program and noted that the question before the subcommittee was whether the pilot program should be continued, expanded (to other printings), or terminated. He reported that by a 3-1 vote the Subcommittee had recommended to the full Council that the LSA be given responsibility to print all bills beginning with the 2000 session.

Representative Linder, a member of the Subcommittee, stated that he thought the pilot program had gone well even though it encountered some problems. He felt that the short session would be a good time to switch to complete in-house printing and made a motion to that effect. The motion was seconded by Representative Kruzan. The motion was adopted by consent.

No indication from the minutes who the “nay” vote was on the Data Processing Subcommittee, but I have my suspicion.

The May 25, 2000 minutes indicate:

Mr. Sachtleben discussed the contents of a memo that had been distributed to the members of the Council concerning the $169,539 cost savings that had resulted from inhouse printing this past session and estimates for savings to be expected during the next three legislative sessions. In response to Senator Harrison’s question, Mr. Sachtleben noted that the “salary” cost figure included the cost of the LSA in-house printers during the session, and the cost of all of the contractors (including overtime paid to LSA employees) for the photocopying of the bills.

Representatives Linder and Kruzan noted that the House was very pleased with the printing this past session and that the error rate was extremely low.

The June 27, 2001 minutes indicate a $300,000 savings from inhouse printing for the previous year. In 2002, LSA apparently got tired of bragging on itself because I don’t see any indication of savings for that year.

But, assuming the 2000 and 2001 numbers were representative, it seems safe to say that LSA’s “insourcing” of legislative printing operations has easily saved the State of Indiana over $1 million. Good thing the naysayers were unsuccessful in maintaining the status quo.

Some legislation that makes me happy has gone into effect. The Journal and Courier has an article on the increase in speed limits. One caveat — if the speed limit sign hasn’t been changed, neither has the speed limit. Seems kind of unfair somehow. All of the laws I don’t like are effective right away, but I have to wait on INDOT for this one to be fully effective.