(Music plays) >> ROHIT: some childcare regulations.

Tenant protections fail again.

Plus, a Medicaid policy belt won't advance, and more.

From the television studios of WFYI, it is Indiana Week in Review for the weekend of February 2, 2024.

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

>> This week, unlicensed childcare providers in Indiana will be able to serve more children for more hours each week under legislation approved by the house.

>> Republican representative Dave tiny says who's your families are spending an average of 24% on their income on childcare and the state has less than half the number of childcare seats it needs.

>> Commonsense reductions to burdensome requirements is a step in the right direction.

>> Hi needs bill allows unlicensed providers to care for as many of seven children up from five, not including any children in their care who are relatives, and it allows those providers to accept childcare vouchers.

It also eliminates a requirement for some licensed providers if the person running it has a high school diploma and any training or experience in childcare.

Democratic Representative Vanessa Summers says the bill is not an except table solution to the states childcare shortage.

>> The only thing I have to say is there are no burdensome regulations when it comes to children.

>> The house sent the bill to the Senate by a 75 to 21 vote with some Democrats joining Republicans in support.

>> Does this childcare the regulation built strike the right balance?

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

>> Democratic at least rock, Republican Mike O'Brien, Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana lawmakers, and Nikki Kelly, editor-in-chief of the Indiana capital Chronicle.

I'm Indiana public broadcasting statehouse bureau Brandon Smith.

At least, are these reasonable changes to childcare regular coalition?

>> I am very wary of deregulating in childcare spaces mostly because we know that we have history to look at for this full stop back in 2013, unfortunately there were just terrible stories that kept coming out and that was due to unlicensed daycare's.

Then in 2014, legislation was passed because it was, you know, high-profile enough that the legislature had to come in and really evaluate this.

This feels like it would be a step back and I am afraid we will be in the same place that we were then as a result of this and shall children's lives are literally at risk with this.

It is not the place to tinker around the spell, if it moods, really needs to be work on before it advances.

>> Changing the number of hours that unlicensed providers can care for kids.

I can get is from four hours to five hours a day for the number of kids who are not there relatives from 5 to 7.

It doesn't seem like a huge change but now we are talking about licensed providers not having to have any experience, any training, or even a high school diploma.

When you go to a licensed childcare provider, are you expecting at least that?

>> Sure, but we aren't going back to where we were before where you would have large- scale childcare operations that were completely unlicensed.

Church based, no safeguards or regulations whatsoever.

So I mean, you are trying to find a balance between OK, what is a professional, large-scale childcare operation that needs state eyes on it and what my kids had were unlicensed at a home with a neighbour.

Or a friend that you pay to do that.

So what Dave is reacting to, and I have reacted -- talked to him about this a year ago, he is reacting to his community that has a real problem with childcare.

Even if you have the money, people of means can get access.

You're on wait lists, you get pregnant and you don't want to wait list to get into a childcare facility so it is a real problem that they are trying to eaves -- ease some of this so there is greater access full stop >> Obviously, in session, they won't do anything budgetarily to provide more access or more affordability when it comes to childcare.

But our people going to react to this of oh, great, I have more places to send my kids.

They might not be as safe, but that's OK!

>> The pressure, it seems to me now, is on that side, the weight is on that side of the pendulum.

People are saying, "I need to go to work, I need to do this, I figured out ways to stretch this as far as I can fall to iWork this shift and that my partner works this shift and a neighbour comes in for an hour in between. "

maybe that's not tenable long term.

Right now, the pressure valve points towards less regulation full stop the problem is, as Elise pointed out, that is the case until there is a tragedy.

And sadly, and inevitably, there will be.

And often times, it will be because somebody who hasn't been trained properly or vetted properly or, you know, screened out of the process is doing something that he or she shouldn't do and then we are left second-guessing the general assembly about why it was willing to scale back.

But I mean, this is the way adulation works on any number of issues.

We deal with certain types of crime so what do we do?

Well, we better have minimum sentencing standards for whatever that is.

Then we say, oh wait, we now have this incredibly, you know, overburdened correctional system where .Mac >> While we can't do that, but we did that, we can't it happens that way on every table top at that is maybe just a human nature aspect of it.

We are asking them to look ahead.

>> Or look wider fall top instead of looking at regulations are not regulations of the actual facilities, Inc. About this as a community and for structure problem.

I think there are so other other bills that were offered that I don't think are moving but look at where in our community with employers and in schools and community centres >> But those have a price tag for the most part.

>> They are worthy investments.

>> There is a bill to offer tax rates to for-profit businesses.

>> But we will keep having the same conversation.

>> That the whole administration... >> A new grant.

He just announced another $7 million available this week with that is only a part of the issue.

>> We have seen a few bills related to children in the last few years that go through the house maybe a little broad.

I don't know if this one is too broad or not but certainly that is the accusation by some.

And we have seen the Senate pull way back on those if passing them at all.

Is that what we are going to see here, on an issue like childcare and everyone agrees needs to be addressed?

>> I don't know, the Senate had their own childcare belt that went through and it did some of the same stop.

I just feel like we are missing some data.

Like, I don't know what the rules are in other states.

Is there any data out there that says one person caring for five kids in their home is safe but seven isn't?

You know what I mean?

I mean, I personally as a parent would be uncomfortable with a 7 to 1 ratio.

Obviously it is their choice and they are adding seats, so to speak.

But I feel like the data part of it is missing from the conversation.

I have seen.

>> Time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we post and unscientific online poll question and this week's question is, should some childcare regulations be loosened to improve access to childcare?

A, yes, B, no.

Last week we asked you whether religious chaplains should be allowed to serve as counsellors in public schools.

18% of you said yes and 82% of you said no.

If you'd like to take part in the poll, go to WFYI.org/IWIL are and look for the poll.

Well, a bill to close a loophole that prevents Marion County from enforcing code violations against some landlords failed to pass the Senate committee this week.

>> Even one of the senators who voted for the bill, Republican Mike Gaskell, expressed serious @ reservations with her.

Gaskell, a landlord, argued that no one speaks up for landlords.

Stephanie Zang is the statewide housing community organizer or whose ear action.

She says the current system is set up to protect bad landlords from consequent this.

>> To me, it says that the people that we elect to represent us in Indiana continue to fail to even move the needle forward an inch to help whose ear renters stay and save, quality home.

>> Prosperity Indiana's Andrew Bradley says tenants are using -- losing health and wealth as the general is that we continue to avoid addressing the state housings to billing issue.

>> We cannot afford to wait a day longer but it looks like we are going to.

>> Mike O'Brien, are you buying the argument that no one speaks up for the landlords?

>> Are you arguing that the landlord constituency isn't the most politically's empathetic one in the building?

(Laughs) >> Or that they are, in some cases, certainly in the apartment sector, some of the most powerful and influential?

>> Yes, it is a powerful group.

But let me say the unpopular thing, there is a balance to that though.

You know, if we think back to COVID era moratorium on evictions, that sounded grateful to a lot of landlords went out of business SOME of these guys are not huge, arch scale apartment complex operations.

You know, in multiple states, a lot of these are I own two homes that I rent and that is my nest egg.

Then back in COVID, people stopped paying rent.

A lot of those people lost their investment because they couldn't keep up with the.

Some of these people aren't wealthy.

You know, but, I do believe, and I think Liz Brown, the chair of that judiciary committee believes, that we are not balanced in terms of tenant rights and that is clearly true if you look at peer states and national averages and where Indiana falls in terms of attendant Bill of Rights full stop >> I think there is, you know, @ Mike Gaskell, who pointed out that he is a landlord, has been a landlord I think he said since he was in college.

I think, and to the point to make dismayed, there is a group of landlords in sort of the middle here, who don't have multimillion dollar investments in this, who own a couple of homes here and there.

And they aren't often considered what we are talking about the balance of this issue.

That seems to be stopping anything from happening on this issue fall top >> Yes, but this bill really isn't about all the landlords across the state.

This was to Senator humbly drafted this to address a specific Marion County issues.

This is a pragmatic solution to an issue that is in her community and so it's not about landlords in general.

This is about really specific cases where the problem is, like, if I make a complaint to a landlord because something is really wrong in my home and it is somehow unsafe.

Health and Human Services needs to come in.

That complaint is tied to me.

My landlord, who was a bad landlord, maybe, can evict me.

And then that complaint is tied to me.

So I am addicted, that complaint goes away, the next person moves in, the process starts all over.

It is about giving people who are just trying to make ends meet and be housed tools to be taken care of.

I don't think that something that good landlords would be opposed to.

>> No, the Senate Democrat had a build heard in the Senate.

So I mean, how crazy could this be?

(Laughter) >> Yes, there is clearly need.

>> And you mentioned this, Ms. Brown has been working in this area for at least a couple sessions now really trying to find something that can get past her caucus and she's clearly not found it yet.

This issue, the bill was only related to Marion County but you look at the issue broadly across the state and we have a case in South Bend that if the investigation plays out the way it looks like it will, is exactly this problem.

There were safety issues, the people left, the safety issues then disappear in terms of code enforcement, some new people come in, and six kids diet of fire and you still can't get a bill passed even with that?

>> Yes, that's rough.

And I honestly and I think everyone else in the state of Indiana should be offended that it was only a Marion County amendment, because you know, you should have some basic safety rules that every landlord has to deal with.

I don't care if you own five homes or 500 apartments.

There are just sort of basic that you should have to fix and if you are not fixing them, tenants should have a response.

And it is, the longer this goes on, we've been dealing with this for years now and I just, I don't really get the opposition to it.

>> There are a lot of landlords in the general reassembly and folks who represent landlords and the argument you keep hearing over and over again is, "I'm a good landlord!

I don't do these things!

My friends aren't bad landlords and don't do these things!"

and that is probably true!

But we don't make laws for the good landlords.

You make laws for the bad landlords.

Why doesn't that argument seemed to resonate?

>> It seems to me, this particular debate is a proxy for debates or, you know, the battle among more deep-seated philosophies about governments and its interaction with the private Centre, and I will identifiably.

-- a few.

It's regular coalition.

It's entering into the free market place.

There are those who probably, if administered truth serum in the General assembly, would say the market will take care of all of us full stop if you have a bad landlord, eventually no one will rent from that person.

So many, somewhere might have that, just like, you know >> I think Mike Gaskell made that argument.

>> It's an argument but there is the mobility issue fall top >> The three market issue.

That's one.

There is also the notion of an anti-Indianapolis, anti- Marion County sentiment out there.

Some people, they think that perception is that the General assembly is really Indianapolis against the world or vice versa.

OK, and it somehow, a Democratic County, which now Marion County is, can't mind its own business or be trusted to manage its own business.

The other thing it seems to me is just as we were engaging in, or some members are engaging in, stereotypes about landlords, the good landlords, you're trying to plaint all landlord as battles I think there is a situation where you are also @ stigmatizing and stereotyping tenants as somehow people who don't have the gumption or the get up and go to buy a house like most Americans are supposed to do.

And by definition, I mean, again, I think this is a minority but there are some people who probably think, just by default, if you are a renter, you must not be able to... >> You can't be trusted.

>> Will I let that renter handle my business?

>> I mean, the American dream, in some areas this is true.

If you Deaf until you have a house, you're not really one of us.

So I think it is a stereotype battle.

>> A build to update state Medicaid policy wasn't count not called down on the house floor on the deadlines dates to advance it as we fall top House Democrats say it might have been made to avoid discussion on amendments they proposed.

>> House Democrats filed amendments that would pause proposed cuts to attendant care, stopping money from being reverted out of the Medicaid fund, and require a report on the reasons behind the programs $1 billion shortfall.

Senate Democratic leader Greg Taylor says cuts to family caregivers wouldn't be a discussion without that shortfall.

>> It wasn't those family caregivers that made the mistake that underfunded our Medicaid need for the next two years.

>> House Speaker Todd Houston says the bill was complicated and lwmakers have to be careful in situations where there is a significant fiscal impact.

>> Are members having conversations with FSS A, you have to be conscious of what you do and don't put in the statute.

And what the consequences of what you do and don't put in the statute are.

>> Republican leaders AB attendant care issue doesn't require legislation this session and will be resolved through the family and social services Administration normal rule-making process full stop >> Nikki, how unusual is it for an agency bill, and FSA agency bill to die in the first half without even getting to third reading?

>> Absolutely unusual.

It hardly ever happens.

The idea that we had some questions and concerns, it's almost laughable.

Look, I get those Medicaid bills are technical.

But I forget who said it, I mean, we passed bill after bill after bill and we say, well, we are still looking at this.

We will deal with it in the second half, you know?

So it clearly was related to those amendments which were bipartisan, by the way.

And I think it is just a matter of talking to Houston and Senator President Bray who basically have said, we are out of this cutting mega Decatur argument.

They will let Governor Holcomb take the hit.

He's not running again.

And they don't want to have to weigh in on basically winners and losers, right?

Because when you cut Medicaid, there are winners and losers.

>> Yes, I think, John, it would surprise a lot of people who have been watching the general simile for the past few years to learn that Republicans are suddenly trusting estate agency and its rule-making process to handle things for them, right?

>> Exactly right.

Because I think we have seen the sentiment you describe in recent years which is, you know, there is almost a distrust.

>> Not almost on absolutely distressed!

>> For public officials and employees who insensibly worked for the federal assembly fall top there colleagues, working paid out of the state treasury on working on behalf of posers whether you're on the state or out of an agency.

And what we think agency expertise carries a lot of this technical, I mean, I don't know much about a lot of the things and I wouldn't want to know.

I mean, don't ever entrust me with utility regulation or, you know, the nuances of Medicaid reimbursement rates.

But that seems to be the sentiment now on some, to your point, Republicans primarily who say "We should do although rule-making. "

which be careful what you wish for because in a full-time session becomes not only unavoidable, but make it a 24- hour day, seven day a week, 365 day session to tragicomic up.

>> To Nikki's point, this is a very dicey issue where you have a nearly $1 billion shortfall in Medicaid that you could just fill with, in the short term with... >> That's what they're doing short time fall top >> But they are looking long term and saying OK, this is unsustainable.

We have to make some, as I think some Chris Johnston, the director, said some tough conversations around Medicaid policy.

But on this one, is it really easy for them to go let's let Aaron -- Eric Holcomb take the heat she back?

>> That's just generally true, you'll have a constituency or parents with a certain illness that is maybe not covered or to the degree that community want to stop they will petition the state, state says no, they go up legislature and pass legislation.

This is the dynamic that the speaker, Rod Bray, Ryan Mishler, Chris Johnson, this is the stuff they are starting to pay attention to because if those two parts of the building are talking to each other, we will have another billion dollars shortfall because the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing fall top the legislature is mandating new coverage in some case.

In this case, for a lot of reasons, they are saying we will let the state handle this on.

Again, theme of the show today: Balance.

You have people billing 15 or $17 an hour, 18 hour days, people are making hundreds of thousands of dollars in some extreme cases off of this program.

That needs to be rebalanced.

The whole program is being resized after COVID when we expanded the roles, expanded eligibility.

You know, and that is why you think hard before you do that because it's so hard to take it away on the backend.

And you don't know your over the line full stop >> Then why are they >> Until you're having a budget conversation and you need another billion dollars you don't have.

>> What you just said there is some people are billing 12 or 1,800 What you just said there is some people are billing 12 or $1800 -- our days.

Rather than stop the program altogether, why not put some guardrails on it?

Why not say you can only bill 500 to -- five hours a day and the rest is your response to Lydia's appearance?

But they went all in!

>> They averted a ton of money to the general fund rather than keeping a contingency for when some thing happens and they need it.

So that >> They like having control though.

>> Isn't this just a preview of what all of next session is going to be about?

Which is exactly, what are we going to pay for and who are we going to allow to make use of services in the Medicaid program?

Isn't this just a very small preview of a much larger conversation?

>> I think so.

And that's what you would expect when 2 million posers are part of this program.

It's big because many people depend on it.

So we are going to also look at why that is.

Our quality of life, everything that goes into this and yes, it is going to be the topic in a fiscal year.

Next year.

>> I want to dip Riesling into the governor's race on this because Suzanne Crouch has made a big deal out of fighting for families not to lose their coverage or access to this reimbursement.

This is not coming out of the woodwork for her.

She has been the chair of the discipline task force, she has been advocating for that community for a long time.

Is this an issue that she can really I know this sounds a little crass, but the reality is can she capitalize on this?

>> Yes, I mean it's a fair capitalization.

It is still a strategy that can help her in the governor's race.

But it is definitely a topic she is well aware of, that she has been involved with as the chair of that task force.

And so, you know, I think she is taking an issue that is in her wheelhouse and running with it.

>> Yes, people are agilely paying attention, too.

I think everyday people are like Medicaid!

And then I don't understand this full stop (Laughter) (Multiple speakers) >> Don't pick on me now, I do better than some people!

>> They understand when caretakers are going to be, you know, defunded.

>> But it also is stereotyped, likely resentful stops some people don't realize that the children of the biggest beneficiary.

They think it somehow people who are lazy and are not earning their keep.

So it just gets down and so many issues we talked about today, too, fundamental misunderstanding of who is affected and how people are affected.

>> A bill that restricts the use of cell phones by students in classrooms unanimously passed the Senate this week and now hits to the house.

Indiana public broadcasting skews -- Kiersten Derr reports a bill would require public schools to make a statement about wireless to mediation devices.

>> In addition to cell phones, the legislation would restrict students from using tablets, laptops, and gaming devices during instructional time unless approved by a teacher for educational purposes.

There are exceptions, like in the event of an emergency or if the student requires a device to manage their healthcare.

Senator Jeff broad, the bill's author, says this bill is a way to reduce distractions and improve student outcomes.

>> There is all kind of data out there showing that it is destructive to learning and as we try to increase outcomes in the state, as is one way I believe that we cannot, Schappell stopped >> Rods as there is still an opportunity for educators to utilize technology in their classrooms.

>> Next one, how successful cannot cell phone banding classrooms be?

>> I don't know if it's enforceable long term but I understand why it's possible we are and getting to support a business option we just talked about all these other issues that are very hard to understand somehow due deal with third grade reading rates or chronic absenteeism connect these are all big struggles but I see kids in class, they shouldn't have that.

At these evils are binding, that's just anti-queer hungry as a state for simple solutions we can understand >> But is it that civil?

>> Look, I don't really understand the point of this bill.

Tell me a school district that doesn't have a rule on cell phones?

My daughter got her cell phone taken away all the time!

(Laughter) >> The fact is they travel to enforce it and nothing in this changes enforcement.

I think it is just about somewhere along the way, principals and superintendents are tired of getting heat from parents, friendly, and the kids about the rules and this way they can say "Well, state laws as we have to have this policy and it's not on us. "

>> I mean realistically, will we be stopping kids from using cell phones or wireless can indication devices in classrooms to back >> You were just chatting about this.

>> My watch!

>> Does your watch how do you take a watch of a child?

In practice, yes?

Maybe it seems like an easy solution but in practice, I'm not sure how this works.

>> You have kids?

>> I have two kids in high school and they have their phone in her hand, as far as I can tell, the entire day!

(Laughter) >> (Multiple speakers) >> I can see that read the text!

It >> Do they ever get in trouble?

>> I think it's elective.

I think it's probably up to the teacher.

>> And there is a time where you shouldn't have your phone.

>> And nothing about the bill >> We are saying we need balance here.

>> Well, that is Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat at least rock, publican Mike O'Brien, Jon Schwantes of Indiana look Lawmakers, and Nikki Kelly of the Indiana capital Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week in Review's podcast and episode that WFYI.org/IW IR and on the PBS out.

I am a Brandon Smith of Indiana public broadcasting.

Join us next time, because a lot can happen in an Indiana week.

(Music plays) (Music plays) >> The opinions expressed are solely those of the panelist.

Indiana weekly review is a WFYI p