>> FRUSTRATION WITH PERCEIVED GOVERNMENT OVERREACH, ESPECIALLY DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, HAS PROMPTED SOME HOOSIER LAWMAKERS TO REDOUBLE EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE WHAT THEY VIEW AS UNNECESSARY - IF NOT DOWNRIGHT COUNTERPRODUCTIVE - GOVERNMENT REGULATION.

OF COURSE, ONE PERSON'S OBSTACLE TO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND ROBUST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS ANOTHER PERSON'S BULWARK AGAINST THREATS TO THE PERSONAL SAFETY AND FINANCIAL WELLBEING OF AN OTHERWISE-VULNERABLE PUBLIC.

HI, I'M JON SCHWANTES, AND ON THIS WEEK'S SHOW, WE'LL EXAMINE THE LEGISLATIVE PUSH TO REIN IN THE RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY OF SUPPOSED “RUNAWAY” ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND “UNACCOUNTABLE” GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AT BOTH THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVELS.

DON'T GO AWAY INDIANA LAWMAKERS - FROM THE STATEHOUSE TO YOUR HOUSE.

THE ISSUE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION RAISES NUMEROUS QUESTIONS - BOTH PHILOSOPHICAL AND PRACTICAL.

ONE OF THE MOST BASIC: WHO IS BETTER EQUIPPED TO SHAPE THE STATE'S EVER-EVOLVING REGULATORY LANDSCAPE - MEMBERS OF THE PART-TIME GENERAL ASSEMBLY WHO FACE VOTERS EVERY TWO OR FOUR YEARS OR FULL-TIME GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO, WHILE UNELECTED, MAY HAVE SPENT DECADES DEVELOPING EXPERTISE IN A GIVEN FIELD?

JOINING ME TO SHARE THEIR THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT ARE...REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE STEPHEN BARTELS OF ECKERTY .

DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE ED DELANEY OF INDIANAPOLIS REPUBLICAN SENATOR CHRIS GARTEN OF CHARLESTOWN AND JOHN KRAUSS, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE INDIANA UNIVERSITY PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE AND THE INDIANA ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND NOW A CLINICAL PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF LAW AT IU.

THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.

WE ARE GOING TO GET TO THAT BASIC QUESTION.

BELIEVE ME, I PROMISE.

I THOUGHT WE COULD SET THE STAGE BY SEEING IF THERE IS CONSENSUS ON HOW MUCH RED TAPE IS ENCIRCLING THE STATE OF INDIANA AND HOOSIERING RIGHT NOW.

I REFER TO A COUPLE OF RECENTLY PUBLISHED STUDIES BY GROUPS THAT TEND TO BE FAIRLY LIBERTARIAN IN NATURE, FREE ENTERPRISE GROUPS.

KATO SAYS INDIANA IN TERMS OF PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM IS NUMBER 6 BEST IN TERMS OF MEANING WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF RED TAPE IN THE STATE.

FORBES -- A THINK-TANK FUNDED BY THE COKE BROTHERS.

THEY SAY WE'RE THE BEST IN THE MIDWEST, AND THEY'RE PARTICULARLY PLEASED BY THE REGULATORY POLICY IN INDIANA WHICH THEY SAY IS A PARTICULAR AREA OF EXCELLENCE.

AGAINST THAT BACKDROP, STEPHEN BARTELS, RECONCILE THAT WITH WHAT SEEMS TO BE, TO MANY IN YOUR CAUCUS, A PROBLEM WITH RED TAPE IN THIS STATE.

>> WELL, I THINK THERE'S A PDISCONNECT.

-- INTENT IS NOT TO SURFACE SOME PROBLEM.

IT IS REALLY TO START DOING OVERSIGHT.

THE INTENT WAS ALL THESE REGULATIONS COME IN.

A LOT OF THE LAWMAKERS IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY AREN'T FAMILIAR ARE RENEWAL PROCESSES AND REALLY WHAT ALL THESE RULES REALLY DO.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE INTENT OF THE BILL AND THE WORD, IT IS REALLY ONLY TO SAY WE WANT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO BE A PART OF THAT PROCESS.

WE WANT TO BE NOTIFIED, WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE AGENCIES 10 SO -- THIS ISN'T SIGNAL WAS LOOKING AT SAYING WE HAVE A BIG PROBLEM.

IF WE'RE NOT NUMBER ONE IN EVERYTHING, THIS IS MAYBE A WAY WE CAN BE.

>> FROM FIVE OR SIX TO NUMBER ONE MAKE YOU HAPPY.

SOME SAY THIS IS REACTION TO COVID, AND THE GOVERNOR'S EMERGENCY ORDERS.

WOULD YOU HAVE BEEN DOING THIS IN THE ABSENCE OF COVID, HARD TO THINK ABOUT A WORLD WITHOUT COVID, BUT IF WE HADN'T BEEN DEALING WITH THAT FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS, WOULD THIS STILL BE SOMETHING ON THE TOP OF YOUR AGENDA?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

SOMETHING I'VE LOOKED AT WHEN I FIRST CAME HERE FIVE YEARS AGO.

THIS PROCESS WAS SOMETHING I LOOKED AT AND SAY HOW ARE THESE AGENCIES INTERACTING WITH THE CITIZENS, AND HOW -- [AUDIO GAP].

>> I THINK WE LOST YOU THERE FOR A MOMENT.

I'M SURE THE RED TAPE -- MAYBE ASSUME ED DELANEY CAN HEAR US.

49 STATE AGENCIES, 93,000 RULES.

THAT DOES SOUND PRETTY BURDENSOME, IS IT?

>> WELL, I THINK AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, IT IS NOT BURDENSOME FOR MOST.

I'VE BEEN IN THE REGULATED INDUSTRY, I'M FAMILIAR WITH IT.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM THE WAY REPRESENTATIVE BARTELS SAID WE HAVE TO DO OVERSIGHT.

THIS CRITICISM IN THE REF-- WE DON'T DO A LOT OF OVERSIGHT OF REGULATORY.

IF THE IDEA IS TO PICK AGENCY WAS A LOT OF INTERACTION WITH THE PUBLIC, A LOT OF RULES TO ENFORCE AND SEE HOW THEY'RE DOING IT, I HAVE NO PROBLEM.

I THINK IN MANY CASES WE MAY FIND THEY'RE UNDERRESOURCED.

AND THAT HAS TWO CONSEQUENCES, ONE IS THEY CAN'T REACT VERY FAST TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE LEGITIMATE REQUESTS, BUT ALSO FROM MY POINT OF VIEW MEANS THEY DON'T REGULATE THINGS THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE STAFF.

I'M FOR LOOKING AT THE ISSUE.

I DON'T SEE WE HAVE A BIG PROBLEM.

ONE KEYNOTE, HISTORICALLY WE'VE TAKEN EVERY OPTION TO TAKE OVER THE REGULATORY FUNCTION FROM WASHINGTON TO DO IT OURSELF.

UNDER DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WE'VE DONE THAT.

AND THE PURPOSE, FRANKLY, IS TO PUT LESS PRESSURE ON THE CITIZENS AND LESS POWER IN THE HAND OF THE REGULATORS, THAT HAS BEEN OUR STRATEGY.

I WOULD BE SHOCKED IF THE REPUBLICANS HAVE FAILED TO TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THAT STRATEGY.

BUT LET'S LOOK AT IT.

SEE WHAT WE FIND.

>> SENATOR CHRIS GARTEN, IS THIS MORE ABOUT BURDENSOME RED TAPE, AS I SUGGESTED, OR IS IT ABOUT LACK OF LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT AS REPRESENTATIVE BARTELS PROPOSED?

>> WELL, JON, THANKS AGAIN FOR HAVING ME, I APPRECIATE THIS PLATFORM TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION.

I WOULD COMPLETELY CONCUR WITH WHAT REPRESENTATIVE BARTELS SAID, TO GO FROM FIVE OR SIX TO NUMBER ONE, IT WILL TAKE A DEEP DIVE INTO WHAT THESE AGENCIES AND REGULATORY BODIES AND THE EFFECT THEY'RE HAVING ON THE EVERY-DAY HOOSIER AS THEY INTERACT.

THAT'S WHAT IT IS GOING TO TAKE FOR US AS A STATE TO GO TO THAT NEXT LEVEL.

IT IS SAYING LET'S DO A DEEP DIVE, A REVIEW, SEE WHERE WE CAN IMPROVE, WHERE WE CAN DO BETTER.

AND TO REPRESENTATIVE DELANEY'S POINT, THERE IS GOING TO BE AGENCIES THAT COULD COME THAT WE COULD UNCOVER MAYBE WE DO NEED TO APPROPRIATE MORE TO SERVICES PROVIDING TO HOOSIERS, THAT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK AT AND CONSIDER.

>> JOHN KRAUSS, YOU'VE STUDIED THIS ISSUE FOR A LONG TIME.

IS THIS SOMETHING WHERE WE WANT TO BE NUMBER ONE AS A STATE?

OR WOULD THAT BE ANOTHER DUBIOUS DISTINCTION?

>> MAYBE WE OUGHT TO STEP BACK AND LOOK AT THE CONTEXT.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT?

TO CREATE OPPORTUNITIES AND SOLVE PROBLEMS.

AND I THINK WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY THAT GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO ENSURE, THEN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ESTABLISHES THE GOALS, THE STRATEGIES ARE SHARED WITH THE GOVERNOR, WHOEVER HE OR SHE IS, AND THE AGENCIES ARE THERE TO DELIVER THE TACTICS.

THAT'S WHERE THE NIMBLENESS AND RESPONSIBLENESS HAS TO OCCUR.

WHEN WE THINK OF REGULATIONS, WE THINK OF THINGS THAT YOU CAN'T DO.

WELL, THE OTHER PART OF THAT EQUATION IS OPPORTUNITIES.

AND WHAT CAN YOU ENABLE AND WHAT CAN YOU HAVE HAPPEN?

BUT THE AGENCY AND THE EXPERTISE IN THE AGENCY IS WHERE THE NIMBLENESS HAS GOT TO BE.

AND I THINK A GOOD REVIEW OF ALL THIS, TO SEE WHETHER OUR AGENCY'S RESPONSIBLE.

BUT THIS IS A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND WHOEVER IS THE CURRENT GOVERNOR, IN IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGIES THAT ARE OUTLINED IN VARIOUS BILLS THAT ARE THERE TO PROTECT AND ADVANCE HOOSIERS.

>> IT DOES SEEM THERE IS AN APPETITE, A BIPARTISAN APPETITE FOR REVIEWING OUR CURRENT REGULATORY SCHEME.

AND ONE BILL THAT SEEMED -- RECEIVED OVERWHELMING SUPPORT IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE WOULD CREATE A TEN-MEMBER TASK FORCE TO I GUESS SEE HOW WE SIZE UP WITH OTHER STATES AND SEE HOW WE CAN IMPROVE, AND MAYBE TAKE A CRACK AT THIS IN A MORE INDEPTH MANNER.

NOW, REPRESENTATIVE BARTELS, WE'LL TALK ABOUT YOUR LEGISLATION IN A MOMENT.

I KNOW YOU'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, TOO.

ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T GO AS FAR AS FAST AS YOU HAD HOPED.

A GOOD IDEA TO TAKE STOCK OF WHAT WE'RE DOING AND HOW IT COMPARES WITH OTHER STATES AROUND THE COUNTRY?

THAT'S -- THAT'S FOR REPRESENTATIVE BARTELS.

>> OH, I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING -- YEAH, I MEAN I THINK THE TASK FORCE IS A GREAT WAY TO IMPLEMENT SOME NEW IDEAS AFTER WE SEE WHAT -- UNCOVERS.

I THINK THE TWO BILLS KIND OF MARRIED EACH OTHER WITH NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO THE TASK FORCE.

I THINK YOU COULD SEE SOME PROBLEMS SO THAT WE COULD GO TO THIS TASK FORCE WITH ALREADY SOME DATA.

THAT IS MY HOPE, AND STILL MY HOPE THAT WE CAN DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO, YEAH, I THINK THESE TWO WORK WELL TOGETHER.

>> AND IT DOESN'T GO AS FAR AS YOU WANTED.

BRIEFLY, I KNOW WE COULD SPEND AN HOUR TALKING ABOUT THE NUANCES OF YOUR BILL THAT YOU -- ONE OF YOUR PRIORITIES FOR THIS SESSION IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT STATE REGULATIONS AREN'T ANY MORE STRINGENT THAN THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS, IT WOULD DO A LOT OF THINGS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A NEW REGULATION, YOU TAKE ONE AWAY, WHETHER IT BE A SUNSET PROVISION, OR HAVE TO BE RENEWED MORE FREQUENTLY.

WHY THAT PUSH?

I KNOW IT MAY NOT GET -- WON'T GET TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESK THIS SESSION, BUT I'M SURE YOU'RE STILL ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT THOSE CHANGES.

WHY IS THAT?

>> YEAH, IT'S A GOOD POINT.

THE MORE STRINGENT CAUSE.

THE KEY AREAS, NOT THAT I DON'T THINK INDIANA SHOULDN'T HAVE MORE STRINGENT LAWS, I DON'T THINK THE AGENCY SHOULD BE THE ONE THAT DOES THAT.

I THINK THAT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, PASS BOTH HOUSES.

I THINK THE AGENCIES AND THE STAKEHOLDERS ACROSS THE STATE TO COME IN AND SAY HERE'S WHY WE NEED MORE REGULATION, MORE STRINGENT.

NOT THAT I'M AGAINST IT, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE JUST IN THE HAND OF THE AGENCY.

>> ED DELANEY, YOU WERE SUPPORTIVE OF A TASK FOR TO REVIEW THIS, NOT SUPPORTIVE, CERTAINLY OF REPRESENTATIVE BARTELS HOUSE BILL 1100.

WHY THE DISTINCTION, IN YOUR MIND?

>> WELL, I THINK IT IS OUR JOB TO DO OVERSIGHT, NOT OUR JOB TO MAKE DECISIONS IN INDIVIDUAL CASES, AND IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO BE THE EXPERTS.

THAT'S ONE OF THE PROBLEMS, WE'RE NOT EXPERTS ON THESE THINGS.

I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE THAT IS NOT IDEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIAL.

I AND A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE DON'T LIKE WHAT IS GOING ON WITH ASIAN CARP GOING UP THE RIVERS INTO LAKE MICHIGAN, PERHAPS.

THE FEDS, IF WE DECIDED OUR AGENCIES DECIDED THAT THE FEDS WERE NOT STRINGENT ENOUGH, UNDER SOME OF THESE PROPOSALS, WE WOULD BAR OUR STATE AGENCY FROM DOING ANYTHING MORE STRINGENT THAN WASHINGTON.

WITHOUT THE BLESSING OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARY.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE EXPERTS.

SO I THINK THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHY WE NEED TO GIVE DISTRESS TO THESE AGENCIES BECAUSE OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND BECAUSE THEY NEED TO MOVE RAPIDLY.

WE DON'T MOVE RAPIDLY.

THE GREATEST REGULATORS IN THE WORLD, INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON THE ALCOHOL LAWS, I WON'T BORE YOU WITH IT.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU HOW MANY OUNCES OF BEER YOU CAN HAVE AT A COUNTY FAIR.

I KNOW THESE THINGS.

SO -- >> THIS IS NEWS WEEK AND NEWS AS THEY USED TO SAY.

INTERSECT WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

>> I WOULD DEFER TO THE PUBLIC, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE COMPETENCE.

NOT JUST THEY MAY BE GOING TOO FAR ON THE ADMINISTRATOR SIDE.

IT IS WHO ARE WE?

AND WHAT IS OUR ABILITY.

>> CHRIS GARTEN, YOU CERTAINLY ARE A BARKER, AND A CO-AUTHOR TO STUDY THE ISSUES, IN CONFERENCE NOW, PRESUMING EVERYTHING GETS WORKED OUT, ON THE WAY TO THE GOVERNOR' DESK.

YOU WERE GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE CONCEPT, THE MORE FREQUENT SUNSETTING OF THESE PROVISIONS.

ARE YOU HOPEFUL THAT THE REVIEW, THIS YEAR-LONG REVIEW LEADS TO AN OUTCOME THAT WOULD BE SIMPATICO WITH WHAT REPRESENTATIVE BARTELS HAS BEEN PUSHING?

>> JON, A COUPLE THOUGHTS, IF I COULD RESPOND TO REPRESENTATIVE DELANEY'S LAST COMMENT.

I DON'T THINK REPRESENTATIVE BARTELS BILL, EXPERTS MORE SO THAN THE AGENCY.

WHAT THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS DES ALLOW, THE RULE MAKING -- FOR PRIVATE SECTOR EXPERTS TO COME IN AND TESTIFY BEFORE US AND ALLOW US TO CONSIDER THOSE PERCEPTIONS, AND I THINK, UNFORTUNATELY, THE RULE-MAKING PROCESS ONLY CONSIDERS THOSE AGENCY PERSPECTIVES.

AND SO I THINK IT TENDS TO BE A LITTLE MORE OF A NARROW-MINDED APPROACH.

THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN SOMETIMES WITH THESE AGENCY INTERPRETATIONS.

JON, TO YOUR QUESTION HERE, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO GO BACK IT THE VERY BEGINNING AND UNDERSTAND THE FOUNDATION OF RULE-MAKING AND WHERE THAT COMES FROM.

I HAVE STARTED TO DO A DEEP DIVE.

IF YOU GO BACK TO KING JAMES THE FIRST, HE CREATED THESE TR TRIB TRIBUNALS.

THE HIGH COMMISSION, THAT WAS SO HE COULD OPERATE AND DO JUDICIAL PROCLAMATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE COURTS, WHEN YOU FAST FORWARD A FEW YEARS, AROUND 1641 PARLIAMENT DISSOLVED THOSE, HE WAS ISSUING JUDICIAL PROCLAMATIONS THAT DID NOT GO THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.

IT IS INTERESTING WHEN YOU SEE HOW THEY COME OUT IN OUR GOVERNMENT TODAY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT OVERSIGHT, FAST FORWARD TO SENATE BILL 264, IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT BILL STARTED.

THAT STARTED BY CREATING AN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, NOT A TASK FORCE.

SO AS I STARTED TO COLLABORATE WITH NOT ONLY AGENCIES, BUT OTHER MEMBERS OF MY CAUCUS AND HOUSE CAUCUS, AND STARTED TO CONSIDER LEGISLATION THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD MOVE THE NEEDLE AND PROPEL INDIANA INTO THAT FIRST SPOT, BUSINESS FRIENDLY, CUTTING RED TAPE.

WE NEED TO DIG IN AND UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE AGENCIES ARE DIFFERENT, AND RULES DIFFERENT, HOW THEY PROMULGATE.

SOME -- YOU MENTIONED 49, HAVE RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY, THERE IS 66 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAT HAVE RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY.

YOU TRACK LIKE 59 OF THESE AGENCIES HAVE EMERGENCY RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY, WHICH IS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE PROCESS IN AND OF ITSELF.

ONE OF THE EXAMPLES I'LL USE -- GO AHEAD.

>>JON SCHWANTES: FINISH YOUR THOUGHT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY.

>> ONE OF THE EXAMPLES, REPRESENTATIVE DELANEY USED THE ASIAN CARP.

ONE THAT I'LL USE, INDIANA GAMING COMMISSION, CONVERSATION EXPANDING GAMING.

THEY WERE UNDER, I THINK THE BELIEF THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY AND AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.

YOU'RE SEEING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY LOOKING AT A HEAVY REGULATED INDUSTRY, YOU CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.

THAT BETTER FITS THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.

>> OF COURSE THAT'S THE DEBATE OVER WHETHER THE LOTTERY COMMISSION HAS THE ABILITY TO GO WITH DIGITAL OR INTERNET BASED GAMING.

THEY SAY THEY WOULD, SOME LAWMAKERS SAY THEY DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY.

JOHN KRAUSS, WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF THINGS HERE, WE HAVE ABOUT THE NIMBLENESS NECESSARY, THE OVERSIGHT, THE EXPERTISE THAT'S NECESSARY, HOW DO WE -- I MEAN, THIS IS -- AGAIN, WHERE ARE WE MOVING AS A STATE?

ARE WE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION BASED ON YOUR ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT OF THIS PROPOSITION?

>> THE WHOLE QUESTION IS THE PROCESS WE GO THROUGH IN ENACTING OR TESTING OUT VARIOUS RULES.

I'M A BIG ADVOCATE OF NEGOTIATED RULE-MAKING, STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS.

BUT NOBODY LIKES TO HAVE A PROCESS THAT THEY WANT A QUICK ANSWER, THEY WANT IT SOLVED, AN IMMEDIATE PROBLEM, AND THEREFORE JUST GET TO THAT GOAL.

THE PROCESS OF NEGOTIATED RULE-MAKING, YOU GOT STAKEHOLDER SITTING AROUND A TABLE WITH REGULATORS TOGETHER, AND YOU LOOK AT THE RISK AND REWARDS, OF VARIOUS RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND WHAT THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS.

THAT PROCESS TAKES A LONG TIME, IT IS MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE.

EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE OUTCOME IS.

AND THE DIFFICULT WAY THAT YOU HAVE TO GET THERE.

I'VE BEEN IN A ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION WHICH THE WHOLE QUESTION OF MUNICIPALITIES, ANNEXING LAND WAS THERE.

AND THERE WAS A GREAT OBSERVATION BY A CITIZEN WHO LOOKED OVER AT A LOCAL CITY PLANNER AND SAID I DIDN'T REALIZE HOW COMPLICATED YOUR JOB IS TO DO THIS, AND WHAT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER.

WELL, THAT KIND OF INSIGHT IS WONDERFUL.

BUT WE HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE USUALLY A DISASTER BECAUSE PEOPLE TALK AT EACH OTHER.

MAKE POSITIONAL STATEMENTS AND DON'T LOOK AT THE INTEREST OF EACH SIDE.

IN THE PROCESS OF ADOPTING REGULATIONS, REVIEWING THEM, I THINK COULD TAKE SOME MORE TIME, BUT I THINK IT WOULD MAYBE BE A MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE RESULT.

>> REPRESENT BARTELS, IS THIS ONE OF THOSE THINGS BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISHED FOR.

IF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY GOT GREATER INSIGHT OF AGENCY PROFESSIONALS AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL, HOW DO YOU MAINTAIN A PART-TIME LEGISLATURE?

HOW DO YOU ENSURE YOU HAVE EXPERTISE TO DEAL WITH LEAD CONTAMINATION, ADVANCED FARMING TECHNIQUES, AND THERE IS A LOT OF BILLS IN TERMS OF PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY IN TERMS OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY.

I WON'T PRETEND I UNDERSTAND.

HOW DO YOU ENSURE YOU GET THAT EXPERTISE, AND FORCE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO BECOME FULL-TIME, I MEAN, SEEMS LIKE IT COULD BE A 24/7 PROPOSITION IF YOU'RE JUST GOING TO MAKE RULES AND OVERSEE RULE-MAKING.

>> ABSOLUTELY HAVE NO CONSIDERATION OF FULL-TIME, THAT IS NOT THE INTENT.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE EXPERTISE ON THIS -- CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YEAH.

>> MAKE SURE.

THE EXPERTISE WOULD COME FROM THOSE STANDING COMMITTEES WITH JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY IN THOSE AREAS.

THE INTENT IS JUST TO BE NOTIFIED TO BEGIN WITH.

IF AN AGENCY IS MAKING RULES FOR ASIAN CARP, A GREAT EXAMPLE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL OF THE POSSIBILITIES FROM ACTUALLY A PUBLIC HEARING FOR STAKEHOLDERS.

SHOULD THERE BE MORE COMMERCIAL LICENSES?

IS THERE OTHER INDUSTRIES THAT COULD HELP?

I KEY IS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MAY DO NOTHING WHEN THEY'RE NOTIFIED WITH THESE RULE-MAKING COME UP AND RENEWALS OR THEY CAN BE INVOLVED.

THAT'S MY INTENT, THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE BILL, TO TRY TO COLLECT DATA SO WHEN WE GO TO THIS TASK FORCE, HERE'S SOME THINGS WE NEED TO CHANGE, AND TO LEAVE ALONE.

>> NOTIFICATION IS A BIG PART.

SOME INSTANCES, IF WE LOOK AT THE PAST FEW SESSIONS, THERE HAVE BEEN MEASURES, SOME SUCCESSFUL TO ESSENTIALLY TAKE A POINTED EXPERTS OUT OF THE PROCESS.

LET'S TALK ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS AT THE COUNTY AND LOCAL LEVEL.

THEY CAN'T DO NOW BECAUSE OF LEGISLATION ENACTED LAST YEAR, THEY CAN'T SAY WE'RE GOING TO SHUT THIS DOWN OR HAVE A MANDATE TO -- CLOSE BECAUSE OF HEALTH REASONS.

IT HAS TO BE ELECTED.

NOT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, BUT LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS.

HOW DO YOU SQUARE THAT WITH THE NOTION IT IS JUST A MATTER OF BEING NOTIFIED?

THERE YOU'RE TELLING THE EXPERTS WE DON'T NECESSARILY BELIEVE YOU OR WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.

>> I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS OUR CITIZENS WANT US AS ELECTED OFFICIALS TO BE MORE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS.

THAT'S ACROSS THE STATE OF INDIANA.

THAT JUST SUPPORTS 1100 -- 264, AS THE PEOPLE OF INDIANA WANT US TO BE MORE INVOLVED.

THEY DON'T WANT AGENCIES TO BE ABLE TO KEEP DOING THINGS WITHOUT AT LEAST NOTIFYING PEOPLE AND HAVING A CHANCE TO TALK A LITTLE MORE EASY THAN JUST THE RULE-MAKING PROCESS.

>> ED DELANEY, WEIGH IN ON THAT.

>> I'VE BEEN IN ON SOME RULE MAKINGS AS A LEGISLATURE, AND REPRESENTING CLIENTS WHO WERE BEING REGULATED.

I THINK THE SYSTEM WORKS PRETTY WELL.

I THINK OUR SYSTEM IS -- IF IT HAS A PROBLEM, IT IS TOO WEAK.

IT DOES NOT -- ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN MY VIEW AND THE VIEW OF MANY PEOPLE.

IT OVERREGULATES SOME INDUSTRIES LIKE THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY.

I THINK IT'S GOOD TO LOOK AT THE BROAD PICTURE.

I DON'T THINK THE CONCLUSION IS LIKELY TO BE THAT WE'RE HARSH REGULATORS IN INDIANA.

I REMEMBER WHEN WE USED TO HAVE DEMOCRAT GOVERNORS IN THIS STATE, AND THEY MADE IT THEIR BUSINESS NOT TO BE HARSH AS REGULATORS, THEY MADE IT THEIR BUSINESS TO TAKE AUTHORITY FROM WASHINGTON.

SO I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT ERIC HOLCOMB OR MIKE PENCE OR ANY OF THE OTHERS HAS BEEN GOING TOO FAR.

CAN AN AGENCY GO TOO FAR?

SURE.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A COURT SYSTEM TO REVIEW ACTIONS.

WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT, THAT SCARES ME AS A LAWYER, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THE JUDGES LOOK AT EVERYTHING FRESH, TAKE NEW EVIDENCE.

I'M GLAD I'M NOT A JUDGE IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES.

>> JUST FOR THOSE KEEPING SCORE AT HOME, THAT'S HOUSE BILL 1063.

I DON'T THINK THAT MADE IT OUT OF COMMITTEE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

THAT'S A FIGHT FOR NEXT YEAR MAYBE.

I COULD BE WRONG.

FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME.

THAT CERTAINLY WOULD SEEM ALSO AS ENCROACHING, SOME CRITICS WOULD SAY, ON AGENCY AUTHORITY.

CHRIS GARTEN, ANOTHER BILL AS WE ROUND OUT THIS DISCUSSION, THAT SEEMS TO HAVE HAD BROAD SUPPORT IS JUST ESSENTIALLY GETTING AWAY, WE'LL STUDY THINGS IN THE BIG PICTURE.

IN THE MEANTIME LET'S GET RID OF ENTITIES, BOARDS THAT HAVEN'T MET IN A COUPLE YEARS AND MAKE SRE GOING FORWARD IF THINGS ARE DORMANT THEY BASICALLY GO AWAY.

ONE OF THOSE THAT'S ON THE HIT LIST, SO TO SPEAK, IS JOHN KRAUSS'S OLD GROUP -- TELL JOHN WHY WE NEED TO GET RID OF HIS FORMER GROUP.

>> RIGHT, AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A -- I DON'T THINK WE'RE DISSOLVING IT BECAUSE OF MR. KRAUSS'S SERVICE.

THIS IS A REVIEW OF DIFFERENT LAYERS OF BOARDS OF COMMISSIONS THAT HAVEN'T MET FOR TWO TO THREE YEARS.

WHAT PURPOSE DO THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS SERVE?

IF THEY DON'T, LET'S DISSOLVE THEM OR SEE IF THERE IS A DIFFERENT WAY TO MAKE IT RELEVANT.

THAT'S ALL THIS BILL DOES.

>> I WASN'T SUGGESTING YOU WERE ANTAGONIZING.

WHAT IS YOUR PRESCRIPTION FOR SORTING THIS OUT.

>> THAT WAS IN 1995.

THE WHOLE INTENT IS HOW CAN YOU HAVE DIALOGUE BETWEEN ALL THREE LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AND THE CITIZENS TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THESE ISSUES.

THAT ORGANIZATION IS AS EFFECTIVE AS THE PARTICIPANTS, PEOPLE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THE STATE ADMINISTRATION, AND CITIZENS WANT TO MAKE IT.

AND OVER THE YEARS, I THINK BEVERLY GUARD AND SUE SHOALER AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN CHAIRMAN OF THAT, AND IT WAS EFFECTIVE.

BUT IT IS ONLY EFFECTIVE AS THE PARTICIPANTS WANT TO DO IT.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S WORTHY OF BEING REVIEWED.

BUT YOU GOT TO LOOK AT THE GOAL.

>> I'LL TELL YOU, YOU HAD PREDICTED, PROFESSOR, THAT THIS IS THE MAKINGS OF A GRADUATE COURSE.

WE WERE GOING TO DO IT IN 25 MINUTES.

YOU CAN GRADE US LATER.

I'LL GIVE YOU ALL AN A PLUS FOR SHARING YOUR EXPERTISE AND PASSIONS WITH OUR VIEWERS AND LISTENERERS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AGAIN, MY GUESTS HAVE BEEN...REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE STEPHEN BARTELS OF ECKERTY .DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE ED DELANEY OF INDIANAPOLIS REPUBLICAN SENATOR CHRIS GARTEN OF CHARLESTOWN AND JOHN KRAUSS, A LONGTIME PUBLIC-POLICY ANALYST AND FACULTY MEMBER AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY.

TIME NOW FOR OUR WEEKLY CONVERSATION WITH INDIANA LAWMAKERS ANALYST ED FEIGENBAUM, PUBLISHER OF THE NEWSLETTER INDIANA LEGISLATIVE INSIGHT, PART OF HANNAH NEWS SERVICE.

ED, WHY ALL THIS NOW?

WHAT IS DRIVING ALL THIS DISCUSSION, DO YOU THINK?

>> SOME MAY SAY IT IS PART OF A POWER STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATURIVE THAT STARTED WITH THE PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY.

NOW WE'RE SEEING MORE SPECIFIC LEGISLATION THAT IS REALLY LOOKING AT CHANGING THE WHOLE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT.

AND I THINK THAT REPRESENTATIVE DELANEY FRAMED IT WELL WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT DO WE DO THIS ON A BROADER BASIS?

DO WE LOOK AT EVERY PIECE OF REGULATION?

OR DO WE CONTINUE TO DO THINGS ON KIND OF A PIECEMEAL BASIS AND JUST RESPOND TO A WITH CONSTITUENT COMPLAINT, A LEGISLATOR COMPLAINT, OR TO SOME KIND OF JUDICIAL DECISION THAT PERHAPS OVERTURNS A REGULATION OR INTERPRETS A REGULATION.

>> HOW DOES THIS UNFOLD, THEN?

YOU JUST FRAMED THE POSSIBILITIES, WHICH DIRECTION DO WE GO?

>> WELL, THE KEY HERE I THINK IS REALLY AGENCY EXPERTISE, AND THAT VERSUS WHAT THE LEGISLATURE, A CITIZEN LEGISLATURE, CAN REALLY DO.

OUR LEGISLATORS ARE EQUIPPED TO DECIDE HOW MANY POINTS PER BILLION CONSTITUTES POLLUTION, OR WHAT ACTUALLY IS THE COMPONENT OF ASPHALT OR ASPHALT IN ROAD BUILDING PROJECTS, AND THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT EQUIPPED TO DO THAT.

IF THEY START TO GET INTO THAT REAL OVERSIGHT ROLE THEY'RE GOING TO FIND QUICKLY THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO NECESSARILY DO THAT.

BUT THEY'RE ALREADY GETTING -- FINDING SOME OF THAT.

THEY PASSED A LAW IN THE LAST SESSION THAT REGULATED EYELASH EXTENSION FACILITIES.

NOW THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IS HAVING SOME TROUBLE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THEY NEED TO DO UNDER THAT TO CARRY OUT, TO IMPLEMENT THAT BILL, AND JUST THIS WEEK, WE NEED ANOTHER 60 DAYS TO FIGURE OUT FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS AND OUR INSPECTIONS OF THESE FACILITIES EXACTLY WHAT REALLY SHOULD BE DONE.

IF THEY CAN'T DO THAT, WHAT WOULD THE LEGISLATURE DO?

WE SAW THE GOVERNOR WEIGHED IN TO THIS ISSUE ON HOUSE BILL 1100 IN A WAY HE TYPICALLY DOESN'T.

DOES THAT -- IS THAT WHAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE ON THAT BILL?

>> I THINK THAT CERTAINLY PLAYED A BIG PART OF IT.

AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT DONE YET, WE'RE STILL WORKING ON IT.

THE NEXT REAL FRONTIER TO WATCH FOR IS THAT HOUSE BILL 1063 ON ADJUDICATION.

>> YES.

WHEN WE BRING ANOTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, THAT MAKES IT INTERESTING AND COMPLEX P. ED, THANK YOU AS ALWAYS FOR YOUR INSIGHT.

>> THE THREE RS, ARE THEY READING, WRITING AND REGULATION OF THE CLASSROOM, WE'LL CHECK INDIANA'S EDUCATION REPORT CARD ON THE NEXT INDIANA LAWMAKERS.

YOU CAN ACCESS LIVE STREAMING COVERAGE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON THE INTERNET AS WELL.

AND, REMEMBER, YOU CAN GET OUR SHOW -- ON DEMAND -- FROM XFINITY.

WELL, THAT CONCLUDES ANOTHER EDITION OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS.

I'M JON SCHWANTES, AND, ON BEHALF OF WFYI PUBLIC MEDIA AND INDIANA'S OTHER PUBLIC-BROADCASTING STATIONS, I THANK YOU FOR JOINING US AND I INVITE YOU TO VISIT WFYI.ORG FOR MORE STATEHOUSE NEWS.

UNTIL NEXT WEEK, TAKE CARE.

♪♪