IBJNews

Indiana Legislature moves on without boycotting Dems

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Republicans who control the Indiana General Assembly moved forward without the boycotting House Democrats on Monday, with senators discussing a proposal for a new state budget and GOP House leaders scheduling informal hearings of their own.

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, directed Republican committee chairmen to hold meetings starting this week to discuss Senate bills, even though no official action or votes can be taken until Democrats return and provide the quorum required by the state constitution to conduct business.

Bosma said he's done directing attention to out-of-state Democrats, most of whom have been holed up in a hotel in Urbana, Ill., since Feb. 22 in an effort to derail bills they consider an attack on labor unions and public education.

"We're turning our attention to legislation now," Bosma said after unsuccessfully trying to convene the House as the boycott enters its fifth week. "We can't really cater to the desires of a few folks too much longer. We spent four weeks doing that without success. We're prepared to move on."

Two House committee meetings already have been scheduled for Tuesday and, like all House committee meetings, will be broadcast online. Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, said Democrats are carefully monitoring Statehouse events from Illinois. He said Republicans can do what they want, but noted that no votes could be taken until Democrats return.

"It's too bad we find ourselves still at this spot," Pelath said. "But I think if we could just get back to calm, rational negotiations, we can have progress here. We can get back to the normal course of business."

Republicans said last week that they're done negotiating with boycotting Democrats and would start working around them. That process began Monday as the Senate started hearings on the state budget, which is one of the bills caught up in the House impasse.

The Senate Appropriations Committee used as its starting point a version of the budget bill that cleared a House committee because no version had passed the full House before Democrats left. Senators typically make plenty of changes to the budget anyway, so the starting point may not make much difference in the long run.

"In order for us to finish our work and do our constitutional duty we need to start moving in the Senate," said Committee Chairman Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville.

Rep. William Crawford, D-Indianapolis, was at the Statehouse on Monday to attend the meeting and told the committee his fellow boycotting Democrats were disheartened by the lack of public testimony about the budget while it was in a House committee.

"That is the main concern we have about the way the bill evolved in the Indiana House of Representatives," Crawford said. "There is going to be some harm done to school corporations in the state. We need to look at ways that we can mitigate that and have public input."

Republicans say the current version of the $28 billion, two-year state budget would hold most spending flat while avoiding tax increases. It would keep overall education spending steady, but include changes to the distribution formula that will hurt some urban and rural schools and help some suburban schools.

Sen. Earline Rogers, D-Gary, said the funding formula would greatly harm some districts and urged Republicans to take a second look at the way the money is divided.

"I don't know what we're going to do in Gary," Rogers said.

Darrel Bobe, the superintendent of North Knox School Corporation in southern Indiana, told lawmakers that his district would have to make more cuts and increase class sizes under the proposed budget, but another nearby district wouldn't have to make such drastic changes. He said the system has flaws with consequences that effect children.

"These are real-life situations," he said.

The Senate committee also heard from social services advocates and planned to continue listening to testimony at hearings all this week.

Also Monday, political parties tried new tactics to drive home their points of view about the ongoing boycott.

The state Republican Party launched a new website — www.indemsgps.com — to track House Democrats. It shows a map with braying donkeys marking sites where House Democrats have been spotted, both in Illinois and in Indiana as they return for town hall meetings or other events.

The national Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, meanwhile, launched a new television ad running in the Indianapolis market. The commercial attacks Gov. Mitch Daniels and fellow Republican for wanting to "kill collective bargaining" and "decimate public schools" and says Democrats are standing up for the middle class.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Did They Take An Oath?
    Every elected official I've ever met has taken an oath of office to serve and protect. The key word is SERVE! If they fail to just that then somehow / somewhere a law has been broken? Does anyone know what the language of their oaths of office are?
  • Very well said!
    Exactly right. Very articulate. You hit the nail on the head and all the other cliches. Thanks, Kevin!
  • Really?
    The personal and emotional comments noted in the previous comments might serve to release some frustrations from the authors but they do nothing to address the real issue. Those that have fled the state to avoid doing their jobs (because they are unhappy with what their jobs are requiring of them) are, in essence, striking. Right? Now federal employees are not allowed to strike (see Ronald Reagan's response to the striking flight controllers in 1981). So, why do we allow State employees to do essentially just that? I am personally paying these people to do a job. I know very well that if I just didn't show up for work for weeks at a time, my employer would fire me. Can anyone tell me ONE reason why these elected officials, regardless of party affiliation, are still employed? Really?
    • About Time.
      Talk about a waste of money - Republican 'cuz they couldn't do their jobs & Democrats 'cuz they wouldn't do their jobs.
    • Who cares????
      What, they still aren't back? Hadn't really noticed since they are so worthless. Perhpas they will stay over there and we can elect some people who actually abide by the rules. Wait, maybe they could all move to IL. That would be great and good riddance.
    • Waste of breath
      I am sick of these lazy democrats and they cheap shot they are taking on our political system. I say it'e crimminal how they are wasting tax payers dollars and they should be impeached form office and evicted to a life of shame in Illinois!

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

    ADVERTISEMENT