The Regional Chamber of Northeast Indiana.

Advocates for a world class infrastructure, a competitive business climate, 21st century talent and rural investment.

One region, one voice.

NEINAdvocates.com.

as Indiana lawmakers concluded their short session last week, more than 170 bills have been moving from the Indiana General Assembly's chambers to Governor Eric Holcomb's desk with aspirations of a session featuring measured changes.

Lawmakers ended up addressing the demand for child care established procedures to elevate third grade reading scores and securing a 13th check for public employees and then deferring most legislation with price tags like Medicaid, education, taxes and roads until next year.

Now our guests tonight look back at the past weeks at the state house and look ahead to what could be a busy budget season in 25.

>> Welcome to Prime Time.

I'm Bruce Haines and with us today are Mike Wolf.

He is chair and professor of political science and acting director of the Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics at Purdue University.

Fort Wayne with Mike is Fred McKissic editorial page editor at the Journal Gazette and EJ Harpur, local attorney and former state representative and we welcome you to the program as well.

If you'd like to join us, please feel free to call us the numbers you see on the screen and will widen out and here we all are filling up the whole frame.

We have Mike do we have Fred and Mike and Mitch and you're not allowed to change chairs because this messed that up again.

>> Thank you guys for being here, sir.

So indeed in January those nine weeks prior it was House and Senate leadership saying that they see the session as a less aggressive one.

More tweaks, more fine tuning.

So we ask each of you in relative terms was it a quieter session?

>> No.

OK, there was a lot of there's a lot of heated rhetoric.

Yes.

As far as tweaks I'm looking at the third grade retention issue.

That's not a tweak in fact or was it the year before they had brought in the science of reading as a requirement for schools which makes sense.

I don't think anybody is going to look at this issue and say what we shouldn't do anything.

But instead of letting the science of reading program move along, they decided to get involved in something that I that ultimately I think is just a mess for schools, you know, and then again another unfunded mandate summer schools that kids actually don't really have to attend, you know?

So yes, I would say rhetorically it was a lot of heat but tweaks it didn't feel tweaky to me.

>> Right.

I care about you.

Yeah, I think the same thing and in a non budgetary year sometimes you move into the regulatory realm or the culture war realm.

So we we kind of talked about that there maybe wouldn't be a surprise if you can't be doling out dollars and cents you can be talking about values and other things.

And so obviously we saw in education the third grade bill and some of the other legislation higher education saw you some regulation that was unexpected.

But so I think we saw some other kind of movements about home rule.

I think you know, as far as what localities can and can't do that we've seen trends as well.

So it was I guess not surprising but it wasn't quite the nature of us use her.

>> I think we discussed when we last met that probably it's going to be a quiet session because it's an election year.

They didn't want to inject a lot of things.

It could become issues.

But as has been mentioned, I think legislators were picking out some things that they intend to run on in their district and as it turned out, there were some controversial measures that were pursued and that caused some heat and particularly on home rule in Indianapolis which there are plenty of lessons for the other cities in the state.

>> Yeah, well and that gets to the takeaways as we've been watching the weeks go by and making notes on the margins.

What do your notes suggest to you as you look back on this session?

Well, I think one of the disturbing things was toward the tail end without discussion in committee was tagging language onto the public access counselor bill which more restricts the public access counselor Luke Brett who's been in that position since he was appointed a little over 10 years ago.

He's done a great job and I deal with him as the county council attorney.

I've been to the seminars that he puts on once a year.

His judgment's been sound and I will tell you that I contacted the governor's office because of my concern over over that bill.

There are law firms in this state that advise local units of government, particularly school corporations how to deny access requests and public meeting requests and that's our default position to to advise this in case of the school superintendent, their default position ought to be what I think I've tried to counsel which is everything's open unless there's a good reason for personnel or for health issues and so on to keep it constrained.

But there are lots of people around the state they won't contact news media, they won't contact a lawyer.

They're turned away from getting access to records and those folks need to need to be assured that there is a there's a there's a strong counselor to local governments.

>> Can I add something to that?

I completely agree and I think it's one of these issues that we'll probably see a little bit most people because they don't realize the importance of that position as a journalist it's good to have access counselor there.

But I think for everybody to have access to open records is, you know, fundamental right I think in this republic.

But what bothered me so much about this was that this happened in the Senate.

This was a House bill that started off about bringing stability to public meetings.

I cannot remember the the author of the bill I think he's from I want to say Cassidy but but anyway, that is a matter it gets to the Senate and this is when it gets attacked by and it Senator Freeman's a Senate committee and I don't think I I don't think it was a committee that it was supposed to go to in the first place.

>> I think he actually asked for it and there's a lot of I don't know, machinations going on in the background that people probably are not going to see and understand.

>> But this feels very personal like a personal attack rather than saying what we need to curtail him because he's made bad decisions, I don't think anybody has looked at what Brit has done.

Look, it is done and thought he's doing a terrible job but he has gone against, you know, some sacred cows in Indianapolis particularly school boards down there in Hamilton County and the public library in Hamilton County.

>> And I think that really changed some people.

>> It's an unfortunate situation though.

It's one of two bills that have the governor's not reached a decision on signing yet.

>> So we may see this weekend some movement and we'll come back to the other bill just in just a moment.

And Mike, let me get to you though, sir, with the what kinds of things are sticking with you now that the gavel start?

>> You know, one of the things we talked about is Indiana is one of 39 states that it's a trifecta that one party controls the governor and both have chambers and it's not a surprise that we see legislation passing elsewhere that called diffusion of innovation and the the the federalism literature that good ideas elsewhere to some to one of the parties will spread.

And so it's not a surprise that we saw that the ten year bill, for instance and some of the other legislation that may be more ideological when you have a supermajority that that that did come.

So while Indiana certainly we can study what happened this session, it was a lot like what happened in other states in both chambers where both both sides of the party.

So I think that will increasingly see Indiana take on or create its own innovations and other states that are Republican will pick those up as was Colorado or California and some of the other states move in the exact opposite position you and it's ironic because as Washington seems to be at a standstill, the states are moving but they're moving in very different directions policy wise and Indiana is one of them if you're worried about you, sir, there are a couple of things we in tomorrow's paper my colleague Jeff Coveleski has written a long editorial on what we thought was the good bills, what we thought were the bad bills and some things that were sort of we don't know yet but I would say youth employment has is something that people should really look into.

Granted, I think allowing 18 year olds to serve alcohol as long as there's a person who can supervise them is fine.

I I moved here from Wisconsin 20 years ago so I was really shocked that that didn't exist here.

But allowing essentially businesses to work kids longer than they need to be, especially at a time when we talk about you know, they're you know, they need to be in school.

They need to learn.

They need to you know, having longer working hours.

You know, this is like again the slippery.

OK, where does it end also, you know, allowing family farms not family farms, allowing kids to work on farms is another issue because you look at records and you know the agriculture industry has a high number of people who were injured on the job.

It's you know, it is a part of that you industry.

But again, do we really want 16 17 year olds and 18 year olds in high school doing that right now when we want them to, you know, again study so much and work them so much?

>> You know, it's just this is a slippery for me, right?

You mentioned to bills the governor's not acted on and I believe the other is the one regarding anti-Semitism, the definition and the action on it.

>> Let me ask each of you the governor was kind of concerned about whether or not that the the definition that was included or recommended for inclusion, the the specific contemporary examples of it were pulled from the final bill governor's has in some reservations.

>> Why is this one so complicated?

But then again, I guess could be rhetorical the whole understanding of the Middle East and the the impact on legislation itself can be equally complicated.

>> So I'm going to ask an attorney and I'm not and I'm not sure I mean we've seen around the country a rising number of attacks on temples and synagogues and other places of of Jewish activity.

>> People are in danger and the failure to agree is kind of commonly this struck me as odd.

There's been a weighing in of some of the prominent Jewish groups in and particularly in Indianapolis regarding this language.

>> I'm not sure why there was such a back and forth.

Yeah, it's a difficult issue clearly given what just happened in October , given the idea of what is anti-Semitism and what is maybe a criticism of Israel but where you know there's crossover there and it's hard to disentangle that and we've seen that probably in other states more than any other but so we've seen as mentioned interest groups on both sides and Jewish groups even disagree and having a hard time coming up, do these examples provide a definition where they backed up when when are the examples part of the that's really some of the the issues that that they faced in wrestling with us in light of all of this, Fred, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita Tuesday called on him to veto the bill which he dubbed a toothless Miss.

It's a if you want to call it a toothless mess, it's toothless because you didn't add in the definitions.

You ask an organization, you ask a group of people what the bill should be about then you don't take their advice.

Then you have to bring in part of a definition but not a whole definition.

You know, anti-Semitism isn't new.

There were some you know there are groups like the Southern Southern Poverty Southern Poverty Group I can't remember the total organization but study, you know, racism in America and nationalism and you know, there have been some anti-Semitic things going on in this country for the last eight years.

So this isn't new.

What bothers me is that again you ask a group of people to come in and talk about the issue.

I think the idea is great.

But if you're not going to listen to people who are living anti-Semitism and you know, take them seriously and say yes, we'll add in the definitions because this is there to help you and help us then yeah, it's toothless in that way.

>> Mm.

>> Yeah.

And in thinking of this as one of the unresolved of the more than 170 bills that in fact are resolved one of the earliest bills to go to the governor was the one related to wetlands definition.

Mitch, I'm going to ask you about this one too.

I'm not sure any of us necessarily saw that one coming but it it came and found its way forward in a relatively short amount of time.

>> It follows on last year's wetlands bill, some of it prompted by court decisions looking at the federal act which I think a lot of observers would say was overly aggressive in the classification of what was a wetland.

But Indiana may have may have gone too far in the other direction.

There are there are certainly a and I will say here in L.A. County I mean we this is a flyover country for migratory birds and it's important to preserve this.

And if you let him go if you if you let the wetlands go, you you let him go forever and the legislature two years in a row sort of going the other direction is sort of fear what might occur next year.

>> Hmm.

Yeah.

regulation I mean the adversary who what countries can own property or mining rights and other things.

There's been a lot of regulatory issues in this session that kind of much more quietly that map the highlights but big, big kind of issues.

I mean what what what what will happen if China decides well U.S. you can't own property here or other you know there's there's a lot going on here when you start to regulate both in the positive and negative.

We had big pornography legislation to write that name or ID and proof proof of age.

So the regulatory stuff is always controversial and but again, when you're not necessarily paying for something hospitals to write about antitrust but there's no there's not a mechanism necessarily of how to how it's going to be regulated .

>> I think there was some real genuine concern about the Chinese land purchases because Indiana's home of the Green naval facility that's one of America's premier military research facilities and there were records of land purchases being very nearby.

I think there were some very legitimate security.

>> I don't disagree at all.

Yeah.

I mean it's it's a real issue and we've seen that the countered part of that is I agree if you know they are national security issues to look at but then you have the rhetorical attacks about, you know, getting rid of sister cities.

You know, I mean going back to the 1950s which is where the Sister Cities program comes out of it was about fostering some you know, some understanding between smaller groups of people you know, citizens of Fort Wayne talking maybe you know, the citizens in China or Japan or you know, around the world.

So that's what really upset me was instead of finding a balance and and speaking to the obvious issue, we create something totally you know, beyond the pale of reason to make the point that we're scared of China or we're worried about China.

I think you could just say yes, we shouldn't allow them to have, you know, land purchases around cranapple facility but then do attack sister cities or even sister states and cities make any sense to Fred?

Are you are you saying that perhaps Indiana's statewide election issues this year shouldn't concern Indiana's foreign policy?

>> It should concern some foreign policy.

But let's be honest if an honest discussion about one of the observations that surfaces in a short session is how many pieces of legislation seem to have a financial impact to them in the conversation, so much so that it was even House Speaker Todd Houston who was saying that most things end up having in some way a budget impact.

So they're going to Senate finance, they're going to House ways and means.

Mitch ,was that your experience as well in recognizing that something that seems procedural suddenly maybe has a dollar sign somewhere?

>> Well, there was the beginning that some things were sent to Senate Finance and some things were not and it seemed some appeared discretionary on the part of Senator House leadership at times I do think in the Senate with Senator Mishler has concerns over how a lot of these issues are going to be resolved going forward.

I think he's looking for a more comprehensive solution that probably cannot could not have occurred this year and so some of those things being particularly in the Senate Finance look for Senator Mishler to be very active and look for a lot of action next year and I think he's he's really showing a leadership role in that regard.

>> You all have some extra thoughts written before you and I want to be sure that there is something that has has not been stated that there's a chance to share.

>> I know we're looking to at some legislation which was introduced in 2004 in a way as a trial balloon without the necessary speed limits to 75 miles an hour, for example, just wanting to see what the reaction was like in committee and then possibly bringing something back in a larger session share with me if that's that's just the way the machinery goes that we will swear where we've seen this bill somewhere before in 12 months.

>> That's not unusual.

You know, having a bill introduced it perhaps a committee chair doesn't move it along or it doesn't have the votes to pass.

You find out where the opposition is.

Perhaps some people need a little more education.

Some interest groups may need to be brought along.

It's part of a process I will tell you that having served in the legislature and then having served in the four way city council, I found my fellow city council members reluctant to put in an ordinance that they had developed.

It might be defeated and it's like a defeat gives vital information and I think that's what you see with some of thee bills regarding as you as you call them balloons.

>> Mike forever and again from a political science standpoint, you know, we're a nonprofessional legislative state so they have very limited time.

So it's not a surprise you'd see things come in iterative fashion one year, you know, gets a reading next year and gets a vote the year after it becomes legislation.

Whereas in some other states, you know, they go year roundpano committee and they'll vote on it and three months after they fix it up.

So it's a product I think also of the structure of our system .

>> So Fred, how much of twenty twenty four is essentially while one session ends the next session immediately starts?

>> It seems that we're we're heading down to whether they've already said that we're going to see an exciting budget session next year but the interesting thing about these trial balloons if we can go back to that real quick because I was thinking about the PFA.

Yes.

Was it House bill thirteen ninety nine that would have essentially allowed you know, the removed thousands of those chemicals that we know through science you know, cause prostate cancer, kidney problems, testicular cancer, diabetes, you know the fact that it was struck down and then they tried to bring it back you know you know when will you get the idea that this is not a good idea?

>> But but it also brings up the point of something I wanted to ask you earlier which is having been in those sessions, how how do the how does that work?

I mean when people it feels like that was they were trying to sneak something over and I don't think people understand how that works when you know the House bill or a Senate bill is struck down and then part of it goes into, you know, maybe another bill.

Well, in the old days there was a bill stripping.

You could have a bill go to conference committee and people would have talked about something important but no bill had been advanced all the way through toward the end and then in conference committee the original contents were totally stripped out and something with a very different topic got inserted with days to go that can't happen anymore.

There were some there were some terrible excesses but now the rule is it has to have passed one chamber or it can be considered for insertion into conference committee.

But it still happens.

>> It happens.

We have Judy with an off line question.

I want to share it with you and we all have about 15 seconds to try to answer it.

But as was discussed early on, what are your thoughts on sending kids to school early due to Daylight Savings Time?

>> Should we be making a change ?

Ready, set, go.

Well, sir, I mean we've seen at the federal level so this is one of these situations Indiana obviously we didn't used to change it's only 20 years since we actually switched with this and it's been controversial.

But the federal at the federal level, the US Senate has passed legislation to do away with us and the House hasn't.

I wouldn't be surprised if you know, if we see at the federal level we just do away with daylight savings time based on some of these concerns.

But I would agree especially when you're a parent with with kids in school this is a big issue.

>> I admit when I was in the legislature I said I was a time agnostic.

I could set my time to whatever was decided and we would back in the days of snail mail we'd get these piles equally high of of the proponents and the opponents.

Once it changed though and I was out of the General Assembly I'd prefer we were iconoclastic staying on regular time all year long.

Well, and in our time we are out of it completely for this edition of Prime Time and my thanks to Mitch Harper and to Mike Wolf and to McKissack and to you for joining us as well for all of us with the program on Brisbane's Take Care and we'll see you again next week.

Have a good night The Regional Chamber of Northeast Indiana.

Advocates for a world class infrastructure, a competitive business climate, 21st century talent and rural investment.

One region, one voice.

NEINAdvocates.com.