♪♪ >> IU GRAD WORKERS GO ON STRIKE.

>> IU GRAD WORKERS GO ON STRIKE.

A COURT OKS INDIANA'S TWO-PRIMARY RULE FOR PARTY AFFILIATION.

PLUS, BRENT WALTZ PLEADS GUILTY, AND MORE, ON INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THE WEEK ENDING APRIL 15, 2022.

>> INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORTERS OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS.

THIS WEEK, INDIANA UNIVERSITY GRADUATE WORKERS IN BLOOMINGTON WENT ON STRIKE FOR UNION RECOGNITION.

DUE TO WEATHER CONDITIONS, IN-PERSON EVENTS WERE POSTPONED ON THE STRIKE'S FIRST DAY.

INSTEAD, GRADUATE WORKERS MET ON ZOOM TO KICK IT OFF.

BEFORE THE OFFICIAL STRIKE GOT UNDER WAY.

>> GRADUATE STUDENT VALENTINA LUKETA SAYS THE PLANNED PICKET LINE SHOWED THE UNIVERSITY THAT GRADUATE WORKERS ARE WILLING TO FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS.

>> VALENTINA LUKETA: THEY WANT US TO REMAIN QUIET.

THEY WANT US TO REMAIN IN LINE.

AND THEY WANT US TO REMAIN SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER.

WHAT WE'RE DOING, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO ON THOSE PICKET LINES TOMORROW IS COME TOGETHER.

>> THE STRIKE WILL CURRENTLY LAST A WEEK BUT COULD BE EXTENDED.

IU SPOKESPERSON CHUCK CARNEY SID THE SCHOOL IS DISAPPOINTED BY THE DECISION TO STRIKE.

AFTER LISTENING SESSIONS, IU RECENTLY GAVE GRADUATE WORKERS A FIVE PERCENT RAISE, BUT HAS NO PLANS TO RECOGNIZE THE GRADUATE WORKERS' UNION.

>> SHOULD IU RECOGNIZE ITS GRADUATE WORKER UNION?

IT'S THE FIRST QUESTION FOR OUR INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW PANEL.

DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY.

REPUBLICAN JENNIFER HALLOWELL.

JON SCHWANTES, HOST OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS.

AND NIKI KELLY, STATEHOUSE REPORTER FOR THE FORT WAYNE JOURNAL GAZETTE.

I'M INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATEHOUSE REPORTER BRANDON SMITH.

ANN DELANEY, THESE ARE GRADUATE STUDENTS, AFTER ALL.

IS UNIONIZING THE RIGHT MOVE?

>> OH, I THINK IT IS.

BECAUSE ANYBODY WHO HAS GONE TO A LARGE UNIVERSITY IN RECENT YEARS KNOWS THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR FRESHMEN AND MANY SOPHOMORES, THE EXPERIENCE THEY HAVE IS MORE LIKELY TO BE WITH A TEACHING ASSISTANT GRADUATE STUDENT THAN A FULL PROFESSOR.

WE'VE UNDERFUNDED HIGHER ED FOR YEARS.

MUCH MORE OF THE BURDEN IS BEING BORN BY THESE ASSISTANTS WHO ARE PROVIDING A VALUABLE SERVICE TO THE UNIVERSITIES.

THEY'RE NOT PAID VERY MUCH AT ALL.

THEY ARE STILL CHARGED FEES, AND IN ADDITION, THEY DON'T HAVE FULL BENEFITS.

I THINK IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE FOR THEM TO UNIONIZE.

THEY SHOULD RECOGNIZE THEM >> SHOULD THEY RECOGNIZE THIS?

>> I.U.

IS TAKING THE RIGHT POSITION.

WHEN YOU BOIL THIS DOWN, THIS IS FEWERER THAN 10% OF THE STUDENTS WHO ARE ORGANIZING TO TRY TO UNIONIZE, IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR PACKAGES.

I THINK ON AVERAGE IT IS ABOUT $50,000 A YEAR, FREE TUITION, PLUS A STIPEND, BENEFITS, I THINK IF YOU DIG DEEP INTO WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, IT'S NOT SO MUCH ABOUT THAT AS IT IS OTHER BROADER THINGS.

ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO IS REPRESENTING THE FOLKS WHO WANT TO UNIONIZE SAID IN THIS MEETING LAST WEEK, EVEN IF YOU GAVE US THE IDEAL PACKAGE AND SOLVED ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS, WE WOULD STILL BE DISGRUNTLED AND UNSATISFIED.

>> THAT'S ONE PERSON.

>> IT'S A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GROUP.

AT THEIR FORUM.

I READ IT IN THEIR NEWSPAPER.

>> MUST BE TRUE THEN.

>> WELL, I ASSUME SO.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REALLY A MINORITY.

AND THERE IS ALSO IN EFFECT HERE FOR THE UNDER GRADUATES, YOU'VE GOT THESE FOLKS WHO ARE STRIKING, WHICH MEANS THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CLASSES, THEY'RE NOT GRADING PAPERS, AND THEY'RE AT RISK OF NOT GETTING SCORES FOR THIS SEMESTER, WHICH MAY BE WHAT THEY NEED TO GRADUATE BECAUSE THEY'RE KIND OF BEING HELD CAPTIVE TO THIS PROCESS.

>> IF IT'S A SMALL PERCENTAGE.

>> IF THEY'RE LOBBYING FOR A BIGGER PACKAGE, THEY SHOULD GET THAT.

THE POINT IS NOT REALLY THE PANEL -- >> UNION OR BUST.

>> WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT ONE PERSON EXEMPLIFIES THE ENTIRE GROUP, IF IT IS ONLY 10% OF THE GROUP, THEN THEY WON'T UNIONIZE, THEY HAVE TO GET ALL THE MEMBERS TOGETHER AND VOTE, BY MAJORITY VOTE, IF NOT, THEN IT WILL FAIL ON ITS OWN MERITS.

>> JON, THERE'S A REAL SURGE OF UNIONIZATION ACROSS THE COUNTRY IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS, EXEMPLIFIED BY UNIONIZATION FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AMAZON WAREHOUSES, FOR INSTANCE.

THIS ISN'T AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AS THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE STUDENTS.

HOW MUCH DOES THIS COMPLICATE THIS ISSUE?

>> DEFINITELY DOES.

LET ME SAY A COUPLE THINGS.

FIRST A DISCLOSURE, DISCLAIMER, I HAVE A SON WHO IS IN THE MASTER'S PROGRAM AT I.U., INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM.

AND HE IS A T.A., A TEACHING ASSISTANT FOR TWO MORE WEEKS UNTIL HE GETS HIS DEGREE, AFTER THAT I WILL TELL YOU WHAT I THINK.

IN THE MEANTIME, WE'VE SEEN A SURGE NOT ONLY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR WITH AMAZON, AND SOME OF THESE THINGS, BUT ALSO IN HIGHER EDUCATION.

WHETHER THERE IS SOME PEOPLE WHO SAY IT HAD TO DO WITH COVID AND THE ADDITIONAL PRESSURES PLACED ON GRADUATE STUDENTS IN TERMS OF HELPING PROFESSORS THROUGH THE INTERNET AGE, AND DEALING WITH DISTANCE LEARNING, AND THESE TYPES OF THINGS.

WHAT WE'RE ALSO SEEING IS MORE PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS ARE BEING UNIONIZED.

THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE CHANGE IN ADMINISTRATION.

ESSENTIALLY WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN UNDER DONALD TRUMP'S ADMINISTRATION.

BUT BIDEN HAS ALLOWED THAT TO HAPPEN.

SO WE'RE SEEING HARVARD, WHICH IS UNITED AUTOWORKERS, KIND OF AN ODD UNION TO REPRESENT, ONE OF OUR MOST ESTEEMED INSTITUTIONS.

BUT, WE'RE SEEING OTHERS.

AND BIG TEN SCHOOLS, ILLINOIS, AND MAYBE WISCONSIN.

ABOUT 70-SOME ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

IT IS HAPPENING.

BUT IT'S -- FOR HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS, WHICH ARE STEEPED IN TRADITION, THE NOTION OF SHARED GOVERNANCE -- >> PARTICULARLY WHEN IT IS PUBLIC.

>> TEA TALK ABOUT SHARED INSTITUTION, THE ABILITY TO BE NIMBLE AND TEACH -- THEY'RE WORRIED IT WILL CHANGE THE FUNDAMENTAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FULL TIME FACULTY AND THESE INDIVIDUALS MAKING THEM EMPLOYEES, NOT STUDENTS WHO ARE JOINED IN THIS SHARED GOAL OF KNOWLEDGE FOR KNOWLEDGE SAKE.

>> NIKI, FROM THE PUBLIC SUPPORT, OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT AND DON'T, THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE WHO SEE SOMETHING LIKE AT AMAZON, YEAH, BIG COMPANY, GET 'EM.

DOES THAT CHANGE WHEN IT IS A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY?

>> PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT.

I THINK THE SORT OF MONOLITHIC BIG BUSINESS MAN IS ONE THING VERSUS THIS.

AND ALSO FROM WHAT I CAN TELL FROM READING VARIOUS STORIES, I.U.

HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE GROUP.

THEY HAVE INCREASED THEIR PAY, THEY HAVE MADE CONCESSIONS, IT IS NOT LIKE THEY'RE JUST -- >> ABSOLUTE -- >> AT THE SAME TIME, I.U.

HAS A POLICY TO GET A CERTAIN NUMBER OF THESE CARDS SIGNED, IF SO THEY GET AN ACTUAL VOTE.

SO I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO SEE IT EXACT REASONING ON WHY THEY AREN'T FOLLOWING THAT POLICY.

>> PERHAPS MORE TO COME.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK IS IMPORTANT, THEY'VE RAISED THE SALARY, BECAUSE THE SPECTER OF UNIONIZATION IS OUT THERE, NOT NECESSARILY OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF THEIR HEARTS.

AS LONG AS THAT SPECTER IS THERE THEY WILL BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH.

THE PATTERN HAS DESIGNED SINCE THE 70s, THE MIDDLE CLASS HAS SHRUNK SINCE THE 70s, THIS IS MAYBE A RESURGENCE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS >> UNIVERSITIES ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT.

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FOOTBALL TEAMS, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY TEAM FOOTBALL TEAM TRIED TO.

WHERE DOES IT STOP?

YOU HAVE THE -- >> THAT'S WHAT THE -- >> YOU NOW HAVE NIL, IS LOT OF THE ISSUES ACROSS COLLEGES.

>> THEY'RE MAKING MORE MONEY.

>> TIME NOW FOR VIEWER FEEDBACK.

EACH WEEK WE POSE AN UNSCIENTIFIC, ONLINE POLL QUESTION.

THIS WEEK'S QUESTION: SHOULD INDIANA UNIVERSITY RECOGNIZE ITS GRADUATE WORKER UNION?

A.

YES.

B.

NO.

LAST WEEK'S QUESTION: WOULD SEN. TODD YOUNG AND SEN. MIKE BRAUN HAVE VOTED FOR ANYONE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN NOMINATED FOR THE SUPREME COURT?

70% SAID YOUNG MIGHT HAVE.

0%, I THINK ONE VOTE SAID BRAUN.

6% AND 7% NOT A CHANCE.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE PART IN THE POLL GO TO WFYI.ORG/IWIR AND LOOK FOR THE POLL.

A REPUBLICAN CHALLENGER'S BID TO GET ON THE PRIMARY BALLOT AGAINST 4TH DISTRICT CONGRESSMAN JIM BAIRD WAS DENIED IN COURT, AS REPORTED RECENTLY BY BASED IN LAFAYETTE'S DAVE BANGERT.

>> CHARLES BOOKWALTER FILED TO RUN IN THE 4TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT REPUBLICAN PRIMARY.

THAT CANDIDACY WAS CHALLENGED BY, AMONG OTHERS, THE VICE CHAIR OF THE HENDRICKS COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY.

THAT CHALLENGE WAS UPHELD BY THE INDIANA ELECTION COMMISSION BECAUSE, AS BOOKWALTER ADMITTED, HE DID NOT VOTE IN THE 2020 REPUBLICAN PRIMARY.

INDIANA LAW SAYS A CANDIDATE IS AFFILIATED WITH A PARTY IF THEY'VE VOTED IN AT LEAST THE LAST TWO PRIMARIES FOR THAT PARTY OR A COUNTY CHAIR CERTIFIES THAT THEY'RE A MEMBER OF THE PARTY THEY WANT TO RUN AS.

BOOKWALTER CHALLENGED THAT LAW, ARGUING IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

MARION COUNTY JUDGE CYNTHIA AYERS DISAGREES.

SHE RULED AGAINST BOOKWALTER IN PART BECAUSE, AS SHE WRITES, “THE US SUPREME COURT DID NOT RECOGNIZE AN UNFETTERED RIGHT TO RUN FOR ELECTION.” >>JENNIFER HALLOWELL, IS THIS TWO-PRIMARY RULE FAIR?

BY THE TIME THE LAWSUIT WAS STYLED, BALLOTS HAD STARTED TO GO OUT.

THE BROADER ISSUE, IS THE TWO PRIMARY RULE FAIR?

>> I THINK IT IS.

IT IS A RELATIVELY NEW RULE IN THE STATE >> IT USED TO BE ONE PRIMARY.

>> THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'RE USING THE TWO PRIMARY -- >> RIGHT.

BUT THERE STILL IS AN EXCEPTION THAT A COUNTY PARTY CHAIR CAN SIGN OFF AND ALLOW YOU TO BE ON THE BALLOT.

I MEAN, THE REASONING FOR THIS, REALLY, IS IF WE'RE GOING TO ELECT SOMEONE OR NOMINATE SOMEONE TO REPRESENT A POLITICAL PARTY, THEY SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE DEMONSTRATED SOME DEDICATION TO THAT POLITICAL PARTY.

SO PERHAPS THERE MAY BE SOME REASON WHY YOU DIDN'T VOTE IN ONE YEAR.

AND THAT YOU'RE INVOLVED AND A COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMAN MAY SIGN OFF AND SAY ABSOLUTELY THIS PERSON SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RUN TO REPRESENT OUR PARTY.

IN THIS CASE, THE CANDIDATE DID NOT VOTE, AND OPTED NOT TO VOTE, IN 2020, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T THINK THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING IMPORTANT ENOUGH OR INTERESTING ENOUGH FOR HIM TO VOTE ON.

I TAKE ISSUE WITH SOMEONE WANTING TO RUN TO REPRESENT MORE THAN A HALF A MILLION PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS WHO DIDN'T THINK VOTING IN 2020 WAS IMPORTANT.

THERE ARE LOTS OF IMPORTANT RACES ON THE BALLOT EVERY YEAR, AND CERTAINLY IN 2020.

SO, I THINK IT IS APPLIED FAIRLY, AND IT IS UPHELD AT LEAST TO THIS POINT >> IN YOUR FORMER PARTY CHAIR, DO YOU THINK THIS -- WHETHER IT IS ONE OR TWO PRIMARIES, DO YOU THINK A RULE LIKE THAT IS FAIR?

>> I DO ACTUALLY.

WE DON'T REGISTER BY PARTY, THERE HAS TO BE SOME WAY TO INDICATE THAT IF YOU WANT TO REPRESENT THAT PARTY IN ELECTIVE OFFICE THAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY COMMITTED TO THAT PARTY.

I SUPPOSE THERE WERE OTHER WAYS YOU COULD DO IT.

BUT THOSE OTHER WAYS ALSO CAN BE ENTERTAINED BY THE COUNTY CHAIR AS REASON FOR LETTING YOU ON THE BALLOT.

SO, YEAH, I THINK IT'S FAIR.

AND I THINK IT'S REALLY, UNLESS WE ARE PREPARED TO REGISTER BY PARTY, I THINK IT IS REALLY THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT >> THIS HAS BEEN DEBATED A LITTLE BIT AT THE STATEHOUSE AFTER THEY PASSED THE LAW, IT HAS TRIED TO BE APPEALED, UNSUCCESSFULLY, ADMITTEDLY BY FRINGE ELEMENTS OF THE CAUCUS, OR NOT EVEN PART OF THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS.

REPRESENTATIVE -- BROUGHT UP AN INTERESTING EXAMPLE, WHICH IS A 21-YEAR-OLD LEGALLY CANNOT HAVE VOTED IN TWO PRIMARIES, AND SO WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THIS RULE AND WOULD THEN HAVE TO ASK A COUNTY PARTY CHAIR WHO ON THEIR OWN WHIM MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT AGREE TO LET THEM RUN IS THAT FAIR?

>> THAT'S A ROUGH ONE, THEY PHYSICALLY CAN'T MEET THAT RULE.

ALSO, I THINK WE SHOULD POINT OUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE INDIANA CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO BE A CERTAIN AGE, LIVE IN THE DISTRICT FOR A YEAR, THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL THING WE'VE PUT ON A CANDIDATE THAT IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

SO I MEAN I THINK THAT IS A FAIR QUESTION >> THIS IS THAT WEIRD INTERSECTION BETWEEN PUBLIC ELECTIONS, BUT PRIVATE POLITICAL PARTIES, IS IT NOT?

>> IT IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THAT, CERTAINLY.

LIKE LICENSE BRANCHES USED TO BE BACK -- >> OR ELECTION OF COUNTY CHAIRS.

>> YES.

BUT THIS BRINGS UP INTERESTING ISSUES, CERTAINLY THE AGE 21 CUTOFF IS ONE OF THEM.

IF YOU LOOK AT DONALD TRUMP, IF THIS LAW HAD BEEN IN PLACE IN NEW YORK IN 2016, HE COULD NOT HAVE WON.

>> THAT'S WHY I LIKE THE LAW.

>> HE HAD NOT VOTED IN A NUMBER OF PRIMARIES, AND HE HAD VOTED IT IN A NUMBER OF DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES, AS WELL.

PLUS YOU HAVE THIS THING WHERE CANDIDATES ENCOURAGE THEIR SUPPORTERS TO VOTE IN THE OTHER SIDE, YOU HAD DONALD TRUMP, ENCOURAGE HIS SUPPORTERS IN SOUTH CAROLINA, ENCOURAGE THEM TO VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS IN SOUTH CAROLINA TO CROSS OVER AND VOTE.

I GUESS IF THEY HAD FOLLOWED THAT ADVICE AND SOUTH CAROLINA HAD THIS THEY WOULD BE OUT OF LUCK.

LASTLY, ANYBODY CONCERNED I MIGHT RUN FOR OFFICE, YOU CAN PUT YOUR MINDS AT EASE, EVEN THOUGH I VOTED IN EVERY GENERAL ELECTION SINCE AGE 18, I HAVE NEVER VOTED IN A SINGLE PRIMARY, SO I GUESS I CAN'T START NOW >> JUST DEPENDS WHERE YOU LIVE >> SINCE I MOVED TO INDIANA WHEN YOU HAVE TO ASK FOR A PARTY BALLOT, I HAVEN'T DONE THE SAME THING.

>> YOU COULD VOTE FOR SCHOOL BOARD.

>> FORMER INDIANA STATE SENATOR BRENT WALTZ PLEADED GUILTY THIS WEEK TO CRIMINAL CHARGES IN A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION THAT ULTIMATELY FORCED A CASINO COMPANY TO GIVE UP ITS CONTROL OF TWO MAJOR PROJECTS IN THE STATE.

>> WALTZ, A REPUBLICAN, ADMITTED MONDAY TO TAKING PART IN A SCHEME TO DIRECT 40,000 DOLLARS IN ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO HIS UNSUCCESSFUL 2016 CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN AND MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO FBI AGENTS.

WALTZ WAS INDICTED IN 2020 WITH JOHN KEELER, A FORMER TOP EXECUTIVE OF INDIANAPOLIS-BASED SPECTACLE ENTERTAINMENT.

KELLER IS CHARGED WITH DIRECTING ILLEGAL CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO WALTZ'S CAMPAIGN.

THE INDIANA GAMING COMMISSION FORCED THE COMPANY OUT OF ITS OWNERSHIP OF PROJECTS FOR NEW CASINOS IN GARY AND TERRE HAUTE.

>> JON SCHWANTES, A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK THIS WHOLE THING ISN'T DONE YET WILL IT HAVE ANY FURTHER EFFECT ON INDIANA GAMING?

WHICH WOULD BE THE MOST DIRECT IMPACT TO HOOSIERS BECAUSE THAT'S MONEY TO THE STATE.

>> SURE.

WE'LL SEE MORE, ASK NEXT WEEK, WE'LL SEE ONCE THE TRIAL FOR JOHN KEELER GETS UNDER WAY, AND WE'LL SEE HOW THAT SHAKES OUT IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THAT TRIAL.

I KNOW THAT IS A COP-OUT OF AN ANSWER, BUT VALID ONE.

ANY TIME YOU HAVE SO MUCH MONEY AT STAKE, NOT JUST WITH ALLEGATIONS OF ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

I'M TALKING ABOUT THE REVENUE THAT'S AT STAKE HERE.

AND HOW MUCH MONEY CAN BE MADE OR LOST SORT OF LIKE A CASINO, I GUESS.

BUT ON A GRANDER SCALE.

IF YOU'RE NOT THE PERSON PLAYING THE SLOTS OR TABLES, BUT ACTUALLY YOU WERE THE HOUSE.

AND WHENEVER YOU HAVE THAT MUCH MONEY INVOLVED, IN ANY ENDEAVOR, I'M NOT TRYING TO CAST APERSIANS ON CASINO GAMING, THERE IS TEMPTATION, THERE ARE HUMANS INVOLVED, PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO CUT CORNERS.

NOW, INDIANA, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, HAS BEEN RELATIVELY CLEAN COMPARED TO OTHER STATES, WHICH HAVE HAD SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH CORRUPTION ASSOCIATED WITH CASINO GAMING.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THIS IS ALL THAT IS OUT THERE, EVERYTHING ELSE IS PRISTINE, ONE WOULD ASSUME THAT SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, AS THE INDUSTRY THRIVES AND GROWS, THERE MIGHT BE ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES >> A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO COVER CASINOS IN THIS STATE AND HAVE FOLLOWED THIS CASE HAVE BEEN WONDERING, IS THERE SOME BIGGER OUT THERE?

NOT THAT THIS ISN'T SIGNIFICANT -- >> I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE WAITING TO SEE IF THERE WERE GOING TO BE ANY CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST ROB RATCLIFFE INVOLVED AND MENTIONED A LOT.

BUT NOT HAD ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT AGAINST HIM.

OTHER THAN THAT, I HAVEN'T HEARD OF ANY TALK OF A MAJOR INVESTIGATION SPREADING OUT INTO OTHER AREAS.

AS FAR AS ITS IMPACT, IT DEFINITELY IS STILL HAPPENING, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THE GAMING COMMISSION HAS GRANTED THAT LICENSE TO THE NEW TERRE HAUTE GROUP, THAT'S PROVISIONAL, THERE IS AN ONGOING LAWSUIT GOING THAT IS ALL SORT OF WRAPPED UP IN THIS ISSUE.

WHO KNOWS IF THAT CASINO COULD EVEN BE BUILT WITH THAT LICENSE.

THAT IS ALL STILL UP IN THE AIR >> BECAUSE, FOR INSTANCE, THE NEW CASINO IN GARY, THE ONE THAT HAD MOVED, THAT WAS TRANSFERRED AWAY FROM THIS COMPANY, IS STILL RAKING IN THE BIGGEST AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THE STATE.

THAT'S WHEN YOU OPEN A NEW CASINO THAT TENDS TO HAPPEN.

THIS IS MONEY FOR THE STATE THAT COULD BE HELD UP BY THIS PROCESS.

HOW MUCH FARTHER DO YOU THINK THIS GOES?

>> I WANT TO KNOW WHY IT WAS NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE TO GIVE $40,000 ILLEGALLY, AND TO RISK ALL OF THIS TO BRENT WALTZ WHO HAD ONE FOOT OUT THE ZOAR IN THE STATE SENATE AT THE TIME HE WAS DOING THIS.

SO WHAT HAD HE DONE FOR THEM, OR WHAT DOES HE KNOW IS THE OTHER QUESTION, THAT WOULD NECESSITATE OR WOULD EVEN BRING UP THE POSSIBILITY OF ILLEGALLY FUNNELING THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY IN AN OBVIOUSLY LONG SHOT CONGRESSIONAL PLACE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

>> TO THAT POINT, THAT WAS A VERY COMPETITIVE PRIMARY, ULTIMATELY WON BY TREY HOLLING WORTH, INCLUDING OTHERS, I DON'T THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE THOUGHT BRENT WALTZ HAD A CHANCE IN THAT PRIMARY.

DOESN'T THAT PART OF IT SEEM REALLY ODD TO YOU?

>> YES.

>> I DON'T KNOW.

IT IS INTERESTING.

I MEAN, CERTAINLY I THINK BRENT WALTZ THOUGHT HE HAD A CHANCE IN THAT PRIMARY.

THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE ESPECIALLY EARLY ON BEFORE WE SAW A LOT OF MONEY COMING IN FROM OTHER SIDES, EVERYONE HAD THEIR OWN ANALYSIS OF A STRATEGIC PATH THAT THEY COULD WIN.

I DON'T KNOW.

I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THAT.

I THINK WE'RE A LONG WAY FROM POTENTIALLY KNOWING IF THIS HAS ANY OTHER RAMIFICATIONS, THE GAMING COMMISSION HAS TAKEN ACTIONS.

AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE >> ROD RATCLIFFE NOT GETTING THE TERRE HAUTE CASINO POTENTIALLY PLAYS A ROLE IN TALKING ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THAT, WHO KNOWS WHY THE GAMING COMMISSION DECIDED NOT TO GIVE IT TO THEM, YOU GOT TO WONDER.

STATE LAW REQUIRES SCHOOL DISTRICTS GIVE CHARTER SCHOOLS A CHANCE TO LEASE OR BUY UNUSED BUILDINGS FOR ONE DOLLAR.

INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING'S ELIZABETH GABRIEL REPORTS, A LAWSUIT ALLEGES CARMEL CLAY SCHOOLS DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW.

>> CARMEL CLAY SCHOOLS CLOSED ORCHARD PARK ELEMENTARY AT THE END OF LAST SCHOOL YEAR.

NOW IT USES THE FACILITY FOR STORAGE AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRAINING.

ORGANIZERS BEHIND THE PROPOSED CHARTER SCHOOL, VALOR CLASSICAL ACADEMY, ARE SUING CARMEL CLAY IN HAMILTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO USE THE SCHOOL BUILDING.

THEY ALLEGE THE DISTRICT FAILED TO NOTIFY THE STATE IT WOULD NO LONGER USE THE FACILITY FOR INSTRUCTION.

A CARMEL CLAY SPOKESPERSON SAYS THEY'VE BEEN FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW REGARDING THE USE OF THE BUILDING.

THE INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AGREES.

IT FOUND NO VIOLATION OF THE SO-CALLED ONE-DOLLAR-LAW LAST YEAR FOLLOWING A COMPLAINT ABOUT ORCHARD PARK ELEMENTARY.

>> NIKI KELLY, HOW SOON WILL TO ME THIS SEEMS STRAIGHTFORWARD, THE LAW SAYS YOU HAVE TO BE USING IT, AND THEY TECHNICALLY ARE.

HOW SOON WILL LAWMAKERS CHANGE THE ONE-DOLLAR SCHOOL LAW?

>> EVERY YEAR THERE IS ANOTHER TWEAK.

WE SAW A BIG CHANGE WHEN SUDDENLY IPS HAD THAT VERY, YOU KNOW, EXPENSIVE VALUABLE PROPERTY FOR BROAD RIPPLE HIGH SCHOOL.

THEY WERE A LOT OF CHANGES MADE THERE.

GOES TO SHOW THERE ARE SOME SHALL AUTO -- ISSUES WITH THE LAW, IF WE HAVE TO CHANGE IT FOR EVERY LITTLE EXAMPLE.

THAT DISTRICT IS STILL USING IT, IT IS NOT SITTING THERE VACANT.

I'M SURE THEY ARGUE IT IS NOT BEING USED FOR INSTRUCTION.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

IT GOES TO SHOW THAT LAW HAS BEEN PROBLEMATIC SINCE DAY ONE, IT CONTINUES TO BE, EVERY TIME A NEW EXAMPLE COMES UP WE HAVE TO CHIP AWAY, AND REWORD THE LAW EACH TIME.

>> YEAH.

I MEAN, HOW FAR DO REPUBLICANS PUSH THIS LAW BEFORE IT GOES HOLD ON?

>> DEPENDS WHICH REPUBLICAN, SOME ARE DEDICATED TO THE NOTION -- YOU DON'T NEED TO NAME NAMES.

>> NOT HARD TO NAME THAT NAME.

>> OTHER PEOPLE WHO CLEARLY -- IT'S HARD TO DRAW INFERENCE OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS BAD, PRIVATE SCHOOLS GOOD.

IN THEIR MIND >> PUBLIC SCHOOLS TECHNICALLY.

>> CAN OPERATE WITHOUT THE SAME REQUIREMENTS.

YOU KNOW, YOU HEAR ABOUT LAWMAKERS WHO SAY THE THING ABOUT EDUCATION, SHOULDN'T BE DETERMINED BY ZIP CODE.

IT SHOULD BE A COMPETITION, WHOEVER PROVIDEDS THE BEST LEARNING ENVIRONMENT.

YOU TIE THE HANDS OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN TERMS OF FUNDING.

WE SAW A MOVE, UNSUCCESSFUL THIS SESSION, IF THERE HAD BEEN A PUBLIC REFERENDUM, CHARTER SCHOOLS, PER CAPITA BASIS, PER STUDENT.

AND NOW WE SEE THIS KIND OF THING.

IT IS ALMOST AS IF YOU WANT AN UNFETTERED COMPETITION TO SEE WHICH ONE RISES, LET THERE BE AN UNFETTERED COMPETITION AS OPPOSED TO SHORING UP ONE OF THE COMBATANTS >> IS THIS LAW GOING TO CHANGE TO ALLOW THIS CHARTER SCHOOL TO GET THAT BUILDING IN CARMEL?

>> FIRST, WE SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE COURT CASE, BUT THEN I THINK IF CLARIFICATION IS NEEDED, THEN, YES, I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED TO SEE THAT HAPPEN IN THE NEXT SESSION.

BUT LET'S -- I WANT TO REITERATE CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

JUST LIKE TRADITIONAL SCHOOLS ARE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND TAXPAYERS PAID TO CONSTRUCT THESE BUILDINGS THAT TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE IN.

AND THEY PAID FOR THESE SCHOOL BUILDINGS TO EDUCATE KIDS FOR INSTRUCTION.

THEY DIDN'T PAY FOR THE BUILDING TO BE A STORAGE FACILITY.

I DON'T KNOW THE DEGREE OF ITS USE, I'M SURE THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED.

BUT CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE IN A DIFFERENT POSITION IN THAT THEIR BUILDINGS AREN'T CONSTRUCTED, AND TRADITIONAL SCHOOLS, BUILDINGS WERE BUILT ON PROPERTY TAXES.

>> WHO OWNS THEM, THEN?

TAXPAYERS PAID FOR IT FOR THE PURPOSE -- >> PRIVATE ENTITY OWNS IT.

>> AND THIS IS WHAT THE DEBATE IS.

>> TRANSFERRING PUBLIC MONEY TO A PRIVATE ENTITY.

>> PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL.

>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS, BUT IF IT CLOSES, OKAY, WHERE DOES THE PROPERTY GO THEN?

>> YOU CAN CONSTRUCT THAT.

I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.

>> GOES TO THE ENTITY THAT OWNS THE BUILDING WHEN IT IS TRANSFERRED THERE.

TALK ABOUT RISING, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT STUDENTS ARE DOING BETTER IN CHARTER SCHOOLS.

>> THE ARGUMENT IS THAT IT SHOULD BE.

>> I KNOW WHAT THE ARGUMENT S YOU OUGHT TO HAVE FACTS BEHIND THE ARGUMENT, THEY OUGHT TO HAVE FACTS BEHIND THE ARGUMENT BEFORE THEY MAKE IT.

>> FINALLY, A LAWSUIT IN MISSISSIPPI IS TRYING TO FORCE REPUBLICAN STATE LAWMAKERS TO GIVE REPORTERS ACCESS TO THEIR PRIVATE CAUCUS MEETINGS UNDER THE STATE'S OPEN DOOR LAW SINCE ATTORNEYS ARGUE THAT THE GOP SUPERMAJORITIES ARE MAKING MAJOR DECISIONS BEHIND THOSE CLOSED DOORS.

NIKI KELLY, HOW BADLY DO YOU WISH INDIANA'S OPEN DOOR LAW DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT CAUCUSES?

>> OH, SO, SO BADLY.

I WOULD SIT THERE WITH THE POPCORN.

THE GIF.

WE DON'T HEAR THOSE DEBATES ON THE FLOOR.

>> THAT COMES TO AMENDMENTS OFFERED OR NOT.

EVERY LAWMAKER WILL TELL YOU THEY HATE CAUCUS MEETINGS, NOT AS EXCITING AS WE THINK.

>> BUT THEY WON'T LET US COME.

>> JUST ONCE.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THIS WEEK.

OUR PANEL IS DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY.

REPUBLICAN JENNIFER HALLOWELL.

JON SCHWANTES OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS.

AND NIKI KELLY OF THE FORT WAYNE JOURNAL GAZETTE.

IF YOU'D LIKE A PODCAST OF THIS PROGRAM YOU CAN FIND IT AT WFYI.ORG/IWIR OR STARTING MONDAY YOU CAN STREAM IT OR GET IT ON DEMAND FROM XFINITY AND ON THE WFYI APP.

I'M BRANDON SMITH OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

HAVE A HAPPY HOLIDAY WEEKEND TO EVERYONE CELEBRATING HOLIDAYS.

STAY SAFE, HEALTHY, PLEASE GET VACCINATED IF YOU CAN, AND JOIN US NEXT TIME BECAUSE A LOT CAN HAPPEN IN AN INDIANA WEEK.

♪♪ ♪♪ >> THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE >> THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE PANELISTISTS.

>> INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORTERS OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING