>>> Biden pardoning marijuana possession convictions.

IOSHA failures during the pandemic plus a secretary of state debate and more on Indiana Week in Review the week ending October 14th, 2022.

>> Indiana Week in Review is made possible by the supporters of Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

>> This week Indiana democrats are calling on Governor Eric Holcomb to follow the lead of president Joe Biden and par anyone in Indiana of simple marijuana possession.

The administration announced it would pardon anyone convicted of the federal level of marijuana possession and whether it should be classified as a schedule 1 drug.

The legislative caucus hailed Biden's moves as just and humane.

In a statement Robin Shackelford noted black Hoosiers are arrested four times as often for marijuana possession as white Hoosiers.

The caucus continues to call for cannabis to be decriminalized in Indiana.

Indiana is only one of 13 states states.

Should Governor Eric Holcomb pardon simple marijuana convictions?

It's the first question for our panel.

Democrat Ann DeLaney, republican Ali Bartlett, Jon Schwantes.

I'm Brandon Smith.

Ali, should the Governor follow the president's lead?

>> First and foremost I want to say that I don't really think this is an issue on the fundamental issue is not whether we agree or disagree on whether or not people should be incarcerated for a simple marijuana possession.

I think that what President Biden is doing by now putting this back on Governors is reminiscent of the fact that what he did didn't do very much and now Governors are faced with this question.

I think Governor Eric Holcomb is taking the right approach in saying this something that has to be covered by the legislature at the congressional level or state legislative level.

This is not a executive determination.

>> The statement I got from the Governor's office was that he can't consider blanket pardons for this offense until federal law changes, that the president is trying to go around congress instead of working with them and the Governor pointed out that Indiana's expungement law which allows for the low level non-violent offenses shields these records from employers and we sort of have a system in place already that can help these people not in the Governor's words have a life of sentence.

>> That's fine if they stay in Indiana.

If they don't stay in Indiana the expungement law may not be the same where they try to find a job.

Frankly, this is typical Eric Holcomb.

I don't want to make a decision.

The best thing about what the president did on this is not open the jails since there are -- I don't know if there were any people incarcerated in the federal system for simple marijuana possession.

But it does take care of the records of thousands of young people across the country that would be prejudiced in finding good employment after the fact and what it also does is it brings this topic in front of congress.

When we talked about this issue a couple weeks ago, I think we agreed that what had to happen is federal action by congress, but we can't get the republicans in congress to take action on this.

But this does bring that issue to the forefront.

It makes people start saying, well, okay, this is one step, but we really need to deal with the fundamental problem which requires congress to actually function.

And take it off the list of the controlled substances.

It is not like cocaine.

It shouldn't be on the same schedule asAscoas cocaine and the risks are not the same.

If we could get action from congress but republicans won't act.

>> When we had the conversation about cannabis at the state level we talked about what's going to be the catalyst for the state to finally make a move on this and the Governor has point out he's waiting for the feds to do something.

The feds have done something here though not rescheduling the drug or anything like that.

But does something like this push the legislature closer to making changes than necessarily waiting for congress to act?

>> I don't think so.

Not the current climate with the republicans super majority.

There's just not enough republicans onboard yet while it's still a federal crime.

I get their point.

What kind of -- you know, I guess example are you setting if you decide we're not going to follow this federal law but we are going to follow this federal law.

I mean, it's a fair discussion to have.

And I will say this about our expungement law, tons of people are using it.

This is the perfect example to use it for.

I mean, you don't even really need a lawyer because you just have to fill out a form.

>> If you stay in Indiana.

>> You can still do it from another state.

You just have to file in the county where your conviction comes from.

>> But then the question is what are the rules as far as the other state.

What are you required to say in your application and all.

>> Yeah.

Because Indiana's expungement only applies to Indiana employers theoretically.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> Jon, for the president, you know, who is pardoning all these crimes, for the Governor saying well, one, we have the expungement process but I'm not blanketly pardoning anything before the feds act.

Are there any down sides to either actions for either people?

>> Probably not for any number of reasons that have been discussed, the political makeup of not only the general assembly by Hoosiers' sentiments on these things.

This was for some a real front burner issue.

It wasn't that long ago, was it last year before the session that the Indiana democratic party came out with making cannabis reform its number one priority.

Maybe two and three priority as well.

And I think -- >> Which came as a surprise if I remember to some members of the Indiana legislature.

>> It probably did and it -- because it did come out of the state committee, correct, and the party leadership.

But I think we don't -- it may still be their top priority but we don't hear about it and I think because other issues have cme into play.

We're dealing with inflation, gas prices, mortgage rates, we're dealing with abortion, immigration.

It's just not the potent issue that it was.

I don't think there is that catalyst yet.

As far as what the president -- it's probably tough for a Governor, any Governor to say the president could have done more because I think Joe Biden would love to do more on a lot of issues but look at the pushback on student loans.

I mean he can pardon for federal crimes and he's not in a position to extend those pardons for state crimes.

It doesn't work that way and I can only imagine the uproar if he tried and people saying what happened to the 10th amendment.

>> Also while Governor Holcomb doesn't want to do a blanket pardon anyone can seek a pardon for this now under existing law.

>> Time now for viewer feedback.

We pose an online poll question and this question is should Governor Eric Holcomb pardon anyone convicted of simple marijuana possession.

A, yes, or B, no.

Last week we asked you who you think will win Indiana secretary of the state race.

5% say libertarian Jeff Maurer.

I don't know who is going to win.

That won't be the margin -- in you would like to take part go to the poll.

In-depth investigation by "The Indianapolis Star" show what is the report calls a pattern of inaction and repeated failures by the Indiana occupation safety and health administration IOSHA to protect workers during the Covid-19 pandemic.

>> Covid-19 saw an explosion of complaints directed to the workplace protection agency.

More than 6,000 since 2020 the star report says and IOSHA conducted inspections on less than 1%, the worst rate in the nation.

The star highlighted the Tyson meat packing plant in Logansport which received more complaints than any in the country.

Four workers died and the star reports IOSHA never sent inspectors.

Other details from the investigation, when inspections were done they were often remote, some of the highest number of complaints came from Allen County.

The number of inspectors is down 50% since the agency launched in 1986 while the working population in Indiana has increased 30% over that time.

And state funding for the agency has been stagnant for a decade.

Is there any reason to think anything will change?

>> No.

Not as long as the republicans control state government.

The whole reason is to cut regulations and taxes and nothing else matters.

If workers die, well, workers die.

We give them workers' comp.

But we can give them workers' comp.

It's the same approach they take to everything.

We don't have enough teachers or special education teachers, what's the response, lower the requirements.

We don't have enough college grants grant graduates, we increase tuition support in order to make ends meet.

It goes on and on.

What do we do we put more restrictions in place.

The only time they want restrictions are on voting and a woman's body.

Other than that, all they want is to be left alone.

So it's not going to change.

They're satisfied with Indiana being the Mississippi of the Midwest on all of these issues.

Higher education, K through 12 education, health where we're 49th or 50th.

Voter turnout where we're 49th or 50th and IOSHA where we're dead last.

This is what they want.

This is the environment they want and the only reason -- the only platform they have are cut regulations, cut taxes.

>> This is pretty stark numbers in this story, pretty stark stories in this report.

Does it need a response from the general assembly?

>> I believe that the general assembly will take this to heart and try to move the needle on this in the upcoming legislative session but IOSHA can only do what it can do when they're following direction from the CDC and the federal government as well.

I mean, they're doing the best with what they have and I don't agree with the point about this is what the general assembly does on all of the major issues, especially teacher funding and education when general assembly -- >> Every budget it's record.

>> It is.

>> Every budget is one dollar more.

>> And throwing more dollars and more dollars.

It has to be fundamental policy change.

>> You can have 50% of the staff.

>> Under democrats are -- >> 50% of the staff are republicans.

>> The democrats are the ones who started this and republicans are the ones who have to clean it up.

>> In 1986 by the way you were in control.

>> At everything else, just like everything else throwing dollars at it is not always the solution.

>> Do I think there are people that could do the investigations.

They didn't send somebody to investigate.

>> To take look at what's operated, absolute I.

Versus throwing dollars at everything, absolutely.

>> Jon, we talked about this last week or couple weeks ago, there's been significant pushback in the general assembly over state regulation and part of that is driven it seems by a perception that the state and state agencies aren't responsive to either private citizens or importantly the general assembly when they're asking questions about well why are you doing this or that.

Given that climate, I'll ask you the same question I asked Ann is anything likely to change?

>> Not given the makeup of the general assembly.

Many of the members probably would see a low inspection rate as being a plus.

If you're trying to lure businesses and manufacturers from other parts of the country.

How often do we hear the mantra, you know, we are not going to be tied up in red tape.

You can operate your business and do what you do best.

We'll stay out of your way more or less.

And so there's some would say that's probably okay.

Now, as long as nobody wants to see anybody die or harmed.

But short of that -- >> It happens.

>> It reminds me in many ways it's the state version of the IRS debate at the federal level where the inflation reduction act, you know, earmarked $80 billion for 87,000 apparently much needed IRS employees because right now you can do about anything you want on your taxes I guess.

He did get audited but maybe he didn't.

Enforcement is not there.

That's one way to reap more benefit in terms of the federal tax.

What has the house caucus said, number one priority if they regain control of the house is doing away with that.

The notion of an emasculated agency does have appeal to some people.

IOSHA can make a difference.

This was at a healthier stage in its history, but back in the Plate '80s or '90s Indiana had a huge problem with trenching collapses and people were dying because people weren't putting the proper boxes in and Don Morrow mad been a colonel turned into a troubleshooter republican -- >> Working for the democrats.

>> To clean it up and they essentially -- after a lot of this regulatory scheme and actually did away with those types of fatalities, at least I don't think there was another one in the next 24 months.

>> Of course we had a democratic Governor.

>> Let's not get into that.

>> Niki, the Governor has been talking about and we'll find out what the numbers are eventually but he's been talking about a need to increase employee pay across state government because it's really low.

We are having trouble retaining people, recruiting people to do the important jobs that government does.

This could arguably be part of that, paying them better or getting more of them.

But is he going -- is something like this help him or does it not make a difference, this report?

>> The numbers at least on the the staffing should be easy to look at.

If you're getting X number of complaints and you don't have enough people to look into them, that's a fair discussion to have.

The thing that was more troubling to me about this story than anything was the idea that they didn't send anyone.

Like remote inspections?

I don't even understand what that means.

>> Theoretically the company is only showing you what it wants to show you.

>> Right.

So basically in the end if it was he said/he said between the company and complaintn't Tay took the company's word every time.

I also think it was probably ironically partly due to concerns about welfare of sending someone in to those situations.

>> And my thing with that is that's not a legislative issue.

That's not something the legislature -- that's the way the agency is being run.

>> That part is, right.

>> That doesn't change regulation.

That's how are we doing our jobs within the bounds of the current law.

>> Although agencies have tried to do certain things in certain ways that is perceived as run -- legislature's prerogative but then come back and big foot the agencies.

>> This week's debate between secretary of state highlighted that democrat Destiny Wells and Jeff Maurer agree on a lot but there's a divide over the safety and security of Indiana's elections.

More repeatedly advocated for post election audits in all 92 counties.

Indiana currently does them in ten.

He says such audits will help dispel things like the so called big lie that the 2020 election was rigged.

>> A top to bottom audit of everything that we do.

Every ballot that comes in, every door that gets locked, every person that sees or touches the election process in one way or another.

>> More calls for audits preventive maintenance for election systems.

But Destiny Wells says forcing county clerks helps perpetuate lies about the system.

The system she says isn't the problem.

>> We have people who are acting irresponsibly who are power 00 hungry and can't accept results because they don't want to give up power.

We have to face it head on and fight it with good information and evidence.

>> There wasn't much discussion called the 800 pound gorilla not in the room.

Republican candidate Diego Morales who refused to participate.

>> Niki Kelly, are you surprised Diego didn't come up more maybe not in the questions but in the responses?

He wasn't mentioned that often.

>> Yeah.

I was a little bit.

I thought it would be a little more pointed at the elephant in the room than it was.

>> Or the elephant not in the room.

>> Exactly.

Literally.

I was a little surprised.

On the other hand you risk that fine line of beating up on a guy who is not there, he is not there at his own behest.

>> This wasn't -- he didn't have a conflict.

He just never responded to multiple attempts to contact his campaign.

>> Whatever happened to common courtesy?

Just send an e-mail and say I decline.

>> Jon, I asked this question and opted not to do it to maybe seem like they were taking a position, but an empty podium highlighting the fact -- they mentioned it a couple times.

The moderator started and said he was invited but did not respond.

She mentioned again in the middle of the debate.

Do you put an empty podium to emphasize there's someone not participating?

>> People know the rules of engagement.

The debate commission and others have been around and have been set up to create opportunities for Hoosiers to hear directly from the people seeking their vote.

It's not as if this is some wildcat operation just sprung up, some small media outlet in a corner of the state and said let's have us a debate.

This isn't that.

Everybody knew the rules of engagement.

To the extent that you should be spanked figuratively for not showing up I'm all for it.

I think that's a worthwhile reminder that people have that responsibilities as a candidate.

>> Don't respond to request for interviews, don't show up at more general public events.

There's a public debate put on by a Bar association that he didn't show up.

Joint events he hasn't shown up to.

He seems at least based on his social media feeds to show up to republican events speaking to the base which obviously you would assume is going to vote for him anyway.

Is that going to help him?

I mean even in a race that's not paid attention to like the secretary of state's race.

Is only speaking to your base the best strategy here?

>> So I think this is a question that is unique to Indiana though because in Indiana where republicans are dominant in nearly every office, speaking to his base might be to his advantage.

Do I think it would be different if we were asking about destiny Wells, yes, because she knows she does need republican votes to win.

Do I think it's different for Jeff Maurer, absolutely.

With Diego, he may be safe speaking only to his base.

If he gets enough republicans out to vote for him he may be safe anyways.

>> If Diego MorelE.S.

wins does that send a message like why would I participate in a debate.

>> Like why would I grope people, why would I get fired from the job I'm applying for.

If he wins this election shame on the republican party for allowing him to be nominated.

He can't answer those questions.

He can't go and have an unfriendly question addressed to him about did you do this.

Did you do that.

And on and on and on.

I mean, it's -- he wants to restrict voting.

He's an election denier.

There is so many reasons he's just not suitable for secretary of state's office and shame on the republican party for nominating him.

>> The mayor of Indiana's second largest city pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

The plea agreement at Ft. Wayne mayor's initial hearing in Allen Supreme Court came 24 hours after he admitted getting behind the wheel after drinking at a public event.

After a minor crash Saturday night with no reported injuries Henry was booked into the Allen County jail on two counts, one indicated his blood alcohol concentration was twice the limit.

Henry read a prepared statement to the press.

>> I'm terribly embarrassed by the poor decision making that occurred last evening.

Today I'm here for a single purpose and that is to express my heart-felt and sincere apology.

So all the citizens of our city.

>> Henry, a democrat is up for reelection next year.

>> Jon, every a four term mayor which I think is a record.

Does Henry need to bow out of his reelection bid?

>> It's not for me to say.

This is an issue for voters, for Henry the mayor and for the people who put him in office.

They know better what they expect from the chief executive of their city.

What their expectations are.

And how they react to his apology.

He had an event -- well didn't answer questions necessarily but he did address the cameras very quickly after the incident.

Issued an apology.

Again, whether that is seen as sufficient punishment, I don't know.

The counsel is looking at additional issues such as who pays for the damage since it was a public vehicle.

Once he gets passed the suspension period will he be allowed to drive a city owned vehicle again or what other means is there?

Would someone have to drive him and if so, who is that individual and who pays that person's salary.

It's up to him and his constituents.

>> He didn't try to make any excuses.

It was I did something wrong.

I'm -- >> I had not seen that before.

To be pleading guilty within 48 hours after it happened.

Someone gave him good advice which is let's not make this a story for five days or weeks.

>> But it is going to get dragged out by some other issues.

This is not Gary.

Republicans can absolutely -- might have already.

Someone who has been in office that long there's always questions about can they hold on for another term.

Does he need to -- where democrats can meet all the wins they can get.

Does he need to say maybe it's best to step aside?

>> I don't think so.

I think he expressed remorse.

Who among us has not made a mistake.

At least he owned up to it and anybody who has been in Ft. Wayne over the course of his tenure realized what a great job he's done for that city.

It's cultatapulted it was into a wonderful place to live.

I think people are going to look at that in the context of him knowing he made a mistake and in terms of driving, who knows, most mayors in the larger cities in the state have police officers driving them around.

>> Republicans were looking at this as maybe, maybe, maybe we might be able to pick this seat up.

How much more attention will be paid in next year's elections to winning back this seat?

>> I actually don't think much more attention will be paid just because of this incident.

I do think that the mayor did himself a favor by coming out and owning up to this straight up and I will say we have seen republican members of the council come out and say this mayor has worked well, he's done good things for the city, we generally accept his remorseful apology.

Just given those circumstances and the way this mayor in particular has been able to bridge that gap across the aisle I don't think any more particular attention will be paid because of this incident.

Do I think that there is an opportunity for republicans regardless?

Yes.

Do I think that more focus will be put on this race because of that?

Probably not.

>> That's Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel is democrat Ann DeLaney.

Republican Ali Bartlett, Jon Schwantes of Indiana Lawmakers and Niki Kelly of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You can find episodes at WFYI.org/IWIR or on the public app.

Join us next time.

Because a lot could happen in an Indiana Week.

>> The opinions expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is a WFYI production in association with Indiana's public broadcasting