>> Holcomb calls out Governor Trail candidates, Gaming Commission funding changes plus Todd Rokita's covert reported more.

From the television studios at WFYI it's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending March 29, 2024.

>> Indiana Week in Review is made possible by the supporters of Indiana public broadcasting stations.

>> This week Governor Eric Holcomb says he wants to hear more detail on issues from the candidates hoping to replace him.

Holcomb is term limited for another four years as Governor this year's campaign features six Republican candidates.

The current GOP officeholder says people are telling him they are undecided because they don't know where those candidates stand on the kinds of issues governors face on a day in day out basis.

>> We can repeat words, and most of those words I see broad agreement within the candidates.

>> Holcomb says issues he wants to hear more on include community, economic develop and, if a structure, metal healthcare, broadband access in the future the Medicaid program.

>> What are the ideas, the new ideas, the next, bold, as I've heard many of them say these are bold ideas, I want to see not just the vision, very important to have a vision, more so to have the mission.

Plans to actually realize that vision.

>> Holcomb says he hasn't decided who to endorse, but will do so in short order.

>> Are you surprised at Holcomb's callout?

It's the first question for our Indiana Week in Review panel.

Emma Kratt Ann DeLaney.

Republican Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana Lawmakers.

And Leslie Bonilla Munez, reported for the Indiana Chronicle.

I'm Indiana Public Broadcasting state bureau chief, Brandon Smith.

Mike O'Brien to do here this coming from Eric Holcomb?

>> I think it's natural for governorship for the guy who's into look at the next group and you kind of get in legacy mode and you're trying to give advice to the next crowd I think fairly, if you just look at the 32nd ad spots that are all about things that governors have very little to do with, immigration, humanitarian crisis in Central America,-- >> The Governor of Indiana isn't going to-- >> You are not going to have impact, but the polls.

Susan Crouch talk about the mental health and talk about small town redevelopment and Brad shaver talking about economic -- Brad Chambers talk you buddy, develop and.

I think an it's unfair, to fit with 32nd TV ad that if you watch the debates this week they were all about governance, state governance.

You aren't going to outmaneuver Susan Crouch in a conversation about how the government is going.

When you're talking who the outsiders.

She embraced it, and I think Braun talks about his experiences in a company, how he will pivoted and bring that to the state government to.

So I think on one hand it was kind of reflective for Governor Holcomb and aspirational but on the other hand I think these candidates are starting to talk about what they are actually going to do.

>> You think that's true you marker we started to get more insight?

>> When you are in debate, your question by panel and you need to be somewhat responsible especially if the panel is willing to say you didn't answer the question.

>> I will say on Fox CBS4 today they really held back.

>> Know what they like half the state budget, when Air Force in that situation they talk about it, the ads they are putting on aren't about Indiana, they aren't about Indiana issues, they are about who can stir up hate the most, who can say "I hate Joe ."

more than the other person.

And it is nothing to do-- it is not even tangentially involved with the Governor race but Holcomb did send National Guard down to Texas, which is again ridiculous.

>> The state is impacted by it, but-- >> But you've got immigrants coming to Indiana and filling jobs that need to be filled, and bringing industry here.

It is a positive impact.

It isn't the kind of inhumane references like Trump makes saying they aren't human, animals.

>> As the old-line, they are coming to work at the meatpacking plant.

I've heard that-- >> That's what happened in Seymour Indiana.

It is happening.

>> I've heard that from Governor Trail candidates that continues to be true but not when you are calling 300,000 from the border.

>> When you talk about that-- >> When we talk about this-- >> The only one who had an impact on that was Mike Frost and he didn't have the courage to do what Todd Young did to solve the border crisis.

>> Now will save multiple opponents of Mike Braun immigration-- >> He wants to demagogue the issue he doesn't want to solve it.

>> I would ask about Eric Holcomb again because I think this was a little surprising and that he's never really this-- I mean, provocative maybe a little strong about his comments, but even as far as he went in the op-ed and comments he made to reporters in recent weeks he never really goes that far in kind of pushing people to do something.

Were you surprised to hear the level of specificity and detailing exactly which issues he is sort of demanding to hear more from?

>> I was a little surprised but I also think that since then things have changed a little bit.

We've obviously had the debates, my publication has put out two out of four of these, honestly pretty lengthy, in-depth, policy Q&A is.

People are starting to ask more questions and I think makes sense because we are getting posted to the elections.

But I think we as the media are trying to do our part, candidates are mostly doing their part, answering our questions generally.

But I was surprised.

So I'm interested in seeing if he thinks that has been fulfilled.

>> Was this a little bit-- because we're starting to see Eric Godin has put out policy for two years, to be fair to Eric toad and then Brad Chambers since he got rights in the last few weeks he started to ramp up was seen from Curtis Hill, one big policy proposal from Susan Crouch, nothing really from Mike Braun is actually refusing to put out detailed policy until after the primary, then Jamie Reitenour as she is getting more attention is talking about specific things.

Was this a way for Eric Holcomb to stall making an endorsement in this race because it seems increasingly he doesn't want to do before the primary?

>> You could draw that conclusion perhaps.

You know, the longer you wait the less value on endorsement has.

So you could argue that if it doesn't come yesterday, will it really matter?

And if you wanted to follow conventional wisdom, the easy out would've been to go with his Lieutenant Governor, who essentially was part of his administration, and arguably his business partner and the governance in the state of Indiana and he opted not to do that.

>> Listening to Suzanne Crouch for the last few weeks there might be a reason he didn't endorse her right away.

>> But keep in mind, he hasn't had AI chips implanted yet, he is human and I'm sure it's not pleasant to hear these people sounding this theme without explicitly saying the guy who is in there now is incompetent.

One of the ads actually comes pretty close, you can't bring about change if you don't change the person in charge, or selling to that effect.

So human nature would suggest I actually was trying to govern Indiana with serious issues.

And used to knock him for not being aggressive enough but it was always about getting the computer systems up to the-- now that we are in the 21st century let's get them to the 20th century at least, about roads and infrastructure and quality of life issues and I think it's natural for him to want to address those but I think there's two different issues.

I don't think necessarily his endorsement hinges on what he hears, as a practical matter, he is a student of politics.

He knows these.

And frankly it's a sad commentary on our state or the state of politics if now, only now, I know we don't normally pay attention to Labor Day and the general election may be the week before primaries as it is the case here but we should know more.

And people certainly, they are somewhat disingenuous, the government knows who these people are.

>> He may feel his endorsement will doom his choice to.

>> Speaking of that every week we post on scientific online poll question and this week's question is would an endorsement from Eric Holcomb help or hurt Governor tutoria candidates?

A, help them, B, hurt them.

We asked if they should be excluded from the debates last week with based on funding or pulling numbers, 20% CSN 70% say no, if you like to take part in the poll go to WFYI.org/IW IR and look for the poll.

Indiana gaming officials seem to be largely dismissing concerns about a new law that will fundamentally shift the way gaming enforcement is funding, -- undid,-- funded.

>> Previously the Indiana gaming commission could use fines and penalties to fund their agency come up but not anymore.

Rather lawmakers sent state budget dollars to the agency but also block the executive branch from shifting money to the Gaming Commission if it needs more funding for enforcement.

And said it needs to get approval from them for more funding, which says it is trouble and undermining the power of gaming enforcement.

>> For what, what has gone wrong?

What problem is being solved?

What public policy is being advanced?

Apparently we just think the Gaming Commission has been too hard on the gaming operators.

They've been to mean to them.

>> Republican representative Ben Smaltz is the changes providing a little more oversight when gaming enforcement requires more money.

>> When we as the policymakers that make the rules for the casino industry and gaming industry, wouldn't we want to know that?

>> The funding change comes after three Republican state lawmakers pled guilty to crimes in recent years after casino operator was barred from the commission.

>> Ann DeLaney, has this been overblown?

>> I don't think so, we've had three legislators involved in prosecution related to the gaming industry, and gaming officials had cooperated obviously with those federal agencies, and that in itself means the system is working.

OK?

Hear what you are doing is you are taking away the fines that had funded the investigations before, and we are-- >> They are not taking away fines, they redireting where they go.

>> They don't go to the Gaming Commission.

>> Nobody wants going to allow that money to fund those investigations.

That's number one.

Number two, and they are only guessing what's needed at the moment, you have to go a group of four, one of whom, one Senator of whom is an apologist for the gaming industry.

If we did this to the state police and said if you want to augment your budget because you are investigating public corruption in the legislative you have to go to these four guys and they will tell you whether or not you have the money, when would that happen?

Gosh may be under the super majority it might happen, but the point is you are tying the hands of an agency, which has shown that with collaboration with the federal government taken root out corruption in an industry which frankly nationwide has had its problems.

And we are saying no, you've been to effective, we don't like that.

>> I want to say nationwide to hear about gaming corruption.

At an Indian you really don't.

- There was one operator was barred from the industry who led to three prosecution and we hear the rumors coming to the operator we have-- haven't seen anything yet, is not a testament to it working?

Why would we want to change that?

>> I think it did work.

When they did single out that operator and discovered what was going on there, that's clearly-- that's the message from the industry side.

It's like no, we are policed and it worked this time, so don't come down harder on Oz on the operators that are operating lawfully.

When we have this regulator that is clearly effectively policed out the guys that were doing the right thing.

I think of the backend of that kind of experience, when you have legislators involved in this circumstance which isn't done yet by the way we are still waiting on sentencing, it keeps getting pushed and nobody knows why, is there more coming?

I don't think it's unreasonable for the legislator on the back and go alright, let's take a look at that experience, did we get it right?

Are we regulating this is effectively at as we can?

Is there increased activity, increase cost and we have to ask more money, we need to know why that is we need more line of sight on the.

I think that's totally fine.

I think the timing is the issue.

But on the back and.

>> I will say this-- >> That is true.

>> Wouldn't be the first time.

>> This is part of a larger effort of the General assembly when Republicans particularly like Chris garden didn't charge on these issues, of we don't like how state agencies are policing Hoosier citizens and businesses under-- >> Under our command!

In the last 20 years.

>> In the last few years we've seen radical overhaul of how state agencies can change roles and overhaul penalties and fees and things like that.

I imagine the average Hoosier going I don't want the government in my business if I'm just trying to do a renovation to the plot of land that I have because that's where a lot of this sort of started from with environmental regulations.

But who out there is going " Boy, casinos, that's who we need to stand up for!."

>> Well with the bill, you've got-- >> Framing the question that way that's the point I was going to make, is part of the ongoing trend with the alcoholic beverage committee, we see that now with the Gaming Commission, it's this notion, there's a bit of hubris here it seems that nobody can make decisions as well as we can make decisions.

Never mind that in some of these areas you have an expertise and specialization that frankly very few members of the General assembly possessed.

And in fact that's why, I mean, if you take this to its logical extreme why have state agencies at all if they are always second guess?

If they have to ask for permission at every step in the process.

And it seems to me to be institutional infighting where you do have the one branch of government saying we don't like the executive branch of government even though most of these people who are appointed by and answer to Republicans.

But it just goes beyond even the notion of R versus D. It's we want Buck to stop here.

I said before the logistics of this don't work, eventually unless you just move away from part-time legislature.

granted the budget committee, that's not the full chamber, but if this drumbeat continues to sound and if this move toward "We will make all the final decisions."

that will even be too much for the budget committee of the state, you will have to put more on the plate of lawmakers day-to-day basis, that's unavoidable if this trend continues.

>> Some thing else I was brought up specifically with the Gaming Commission move is before session in the very immediate wake of the latest guilty plea involving a former state lawmaker and federal corruption charges, we had both Rod Bray and Todd Houston saying absolutely no gaming legislation in 2024 and even in the foreseeable future is going to put some doubt on that because there are all these questions about entanglement between the casino operators and lawmakers.

Doesn't this fly in the face of those comments?

>> You know, I think it is because of it's part of that larger trends that's why it was reasoned out of, you know, this is part of a crackdown on making sure we can have these agencies held in line.

But it is still unique because the Gaming Commission was the only agency that was singled out in this way.

But it also didn't come out of the blue.

I mean, at that interim, there's an interim committee meeting and Senator Chris Gartman was preclear he reviewed to the Gaming Commission that he saw He saw as being too harsh on the Gaming Commission but he told them very clearly he would lead the charge on any legislative action and he deftly saw that to the session.

Actually did not come out of left field.

>> Of anything this is going to get harder to police because we were, what?

One of the first, five, 10 states have for instance legalize sports gaming.

Now we were in the vanguard of that movement and now it's I think more than 50% of the states.

And I am guessing en route to becoming two thirds or more.

So gaming is more of an interstate proposition and enterprise than it was even before, when you had essentially Indiana based entities or subsidiaries of larger gaming companies operating here.

Seems to me is hard to police things when you're crossing borders.

>> Yes, although the way the state law has been set up and still does require everyone who is in Indiana, so.

>> Is sort of like dealing with offshore, it's one thing to put it in law but how do you really protect it?

>> The question is does this make corruption more likely or not and the answer is it makes it more likely.

>> Todd Rokita resented a political ported his rally this week that says he says proved faulty state order during the covered pandemic, however Indiana public broadcasting Indiana Rubin reports Rokita's claims lack content.-- context.

>> What Rokita claims are in accurate death counts and how they were informed-- informing public agencies, working with public agencies to gather data in the early days of the pandemic.

Brian Dixon is Director of Public health informatics at Regenstrief, and he said they were in-depth research and what they mean.

>> We were looking at patterns of data whether rates were increasing or decreasing we were trying to make decisions and those decisions were made looking at audible indicators, not just a single thing.

>> Dixon says data can be messy, but Rokita's report doesn't paint a complete picture of the data or how it was used.

>> Leslie.

How should Hoosier Max view this report from Todd Rokita's office?

Speaker Mark I think there's multiple ways to view it.

First you can take it at its face.

He believes this and he's attempting to correct the record, probably a lot of people that agree with him and think the pandemic was overblown, just as though there's probably a lot of people that wish the state had taken it more seriously.

But I think bigger than that is the political element.

You know, he is scoring some political points off this with a base that is really skeptical of those restrictions.

While Governor Eric Holcomb is still dealing with, you know, the follow from these restrictions.

Not only was this report out there, but his own Lieutenant government was on the stage saying this would never happen under her watch.

So there's that.

I think there's also a health element to it because so many people lost faith in health experts during the pandemic and it goes all the way up to our state health Commissioner.

So it is just something that they will have to reckon with, and he probably also wasn't helped that the ID OH didn't respond to requests to comments, they didn't attempt to refute the claims he was making, so it's also not entirely clear how right or wrong he was in making the report.

But regardless, you know, even if some of the numbers are wrong, tens of thousands of Hoosier were still killed by the virus and I don't think we should ignore that.

>> I would ask about the impacts, one thing the report does, it doesn't say the report is wrong, were all the numbers exactly correct?

Absolutely not.

Because we learned more as the thing went on.

But he was also complaining the state use numbers the way the state did not use numbers.

Moving beyond that though, the report says one thing, like oh the you know the huge historic public funding we should move some of that money into basically what I'm saying, dig into the numbers say they were all wrong and come up with a plan for the future so we can never have a lockdown order again.

>> He's an Attorney General tha doesn't have any respect for what his role is, OK?

He doesn't respect the law or the justices of the Supreme Court and now he wants to be this chief statistic-- statistician for the state.

We have a health crisis, look at the numbers-- unless they are wrong too, obesity and smoking.

That he's using the office purely for political gain, that's all.

He doesn't do the function of the Attorney General, but he is running for the next office.

I just hope that he wasn't using state money doing this analysis, OK?

>> Pretty sure he did, but... >> He shouldn't because I would put my faith in region-- Ridge and-- Regenstrief before I put my faith in him.

>> There still a vocal group of people, not a large group of people but a vocal group of people particularly in the Republican Party in the state.

>> Particularly.

Exclusively.

>> They aren't all Republicans, some are also libertarians.

Who agree.

100% and are still angry about the COVID-19 lockdown.

>> Four years later.

>> Does this dissipate and disappear after Eric Holcomb is no longer Governor?

>> It could, but it is important for so many reasons to look back at how COVID was handled, say what we get right, what did we get wrong?

Now at the moment March 20, of 2021-- 2020, you're sitting there antivirus is just coming towards you and you don't know how to test for it and we don't have a vaccine for it, you don't know anything.

>> You didn't even know how it was communicated.

>> Your building roles trying to keep your local population safe in this unprecedented they in four years ago looking back saying you got that wrong, probably.

Was figure out how we got it wrong and get it right the next time.

So that part I agree with Todd Rokita, the report is intended to fan the flames of those Hoosier Max are still angry we got it wrong.

>> Finally we end the show for the second week in a row unfortunately on a sad note.

This week, our condolences go to the family of Fort Wayne Mayor Tom Henry, who died Thursday after announcing in recent weeks a diagnosis of late stage stomach cancer.

He served in city government for more than four decades including 16 years as mayor.

And that's Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney, Republican Mike O'Brien, Jon Schwantes of Indiana Lawmakers, and Leslie Bonilla Munez of Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week in Review's podcast and episodes at WFYI.org/IWIR or on the PBS App.

I'm Brandon Smith of Indiana Public Broadcasting.

Join us next time, because a lot can 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 podcasting stations.