IBJNews

Bill to make IEDC more transparent moves to full senate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee unanimously passed legislation Tuesday meant to makes the state’s job-creation efforts more transparent to the general public.

Senate Bill 162, which now moves to the full Senate for consideration, would increase the amount of information made public when the Indiana Economic Development Corp. gives tax breaks and other incentives to companies to move to or expand in Indiana.

“It’s the public’s right to know how their tax dollars are being spent,” said Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel.

Under current law, the IEDC and the businesses that receive incentives are not required to release the records pertaining to the number of jobs created or the money handed out.

The incentives are not paid out until actual jobs are created, according to Eric Doden, the IEDC's new CEO.

The bill would require both the agency and the firms to present annual job creation and financial investment information to the public.

Delph said the committee needs to answer one key question: “When a company seeks a public tax break and, in return, tells the state they plan to invest a certain amount of dollars, or create a certain number of jobs, should they be held accountable by routine disclosure of their progress to that which they promised the state?”

But Sen. Gregory Taylor, D-Indianapolis, questioned whether the added transparency would help or hurt the IEDC’s quest to recruit new businesses. Taylor pointed out that a private company’s financial information often falls under the category of trade secrets in the state’s Open Records law for a reason. He said opening this information to the public, including competing businesses and states, could be detrimental to the IEDC’s goals.

Delph responded by saying that Illinois has some of the strongest transparency laws in the country and has still attracted more new facilities and expansions in the last three years than Indiana.

He said the goal is to tie tax dollars and job commitments to what they — the businesses — promised to do in advance.

Doden said the IEDC favors transparency and accountability but doesn’t want to do anything that puts at risk his organization’s ability to bring jobs to Indiana. He does, however, support the bill.

Indiana spends about $142 per capita on corporate subsidies, according to a recent New York Times study, but that's far less than many other states.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

ADVERTISEMENT