Indiana's state lawmakers would have to submit to drug tests before they get perks like parking spots and laptops under
a plan advanced Monday by the state House of Representatives.
The testing proposal is part of a bill introduced by Rep. Jud McMillin, R-Brookville, that would mandate Indiana's welfare
recipients take drug tests before receiving any assistance. But McMillin withdrew his measure last week after lawmakers amended
it to also require lawmakers to submit to drug tests.
McMillin said he withdrew the measure because the drug testing of legislators would be unconstitutional. But he brought a
diluted version the bill back for consideration on Monday.
"This particular amendment would provide for legislative drug testing in in a way that I fully believe would meet constitutional
muster," he said.
Indiana lawmakers overwhelmingly chose McMillin's pared-down drug test for themselves Monday, voting 81-15 for the proposal.
The diluted plan would limit the number of lawmakers who are tested and give the House speaker and Senate president pro tem
the power to test lawmakers they suspect of using drugs.
Democrats argued that Indiana's poor should not be the lone targets of drug testing, in one instance offering an amendment
that would have mandated business owners who receive tax breaks and loans from the state take drug tests as well.
"I think at some point the people of Indiana want consistency when government money is given, about whether or not somebody
is drug free when they accept it," said Rep. Ryan Dvorak, D-South Bend, who authored the original amendment requiring
lawmakers to submit to the tests.
The overarching question of constitutionality and Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure has led federal
courts to block drug-testing of welfare recipients in other states.
A federal judge ordered last year that Florida's testing law be put on hold while a challenge from the ACLU and a single
father works its way through the courts. A federal appeals court blocked Michigan's attempt to mandate drug testing in
2003.
- Home
- NEWS
- REGIONAL
- THIS WEEK'S PAPER
- BLOGS
- Multimedia
- OPINION
- A&E
- LISTS
- PEOPLE
- EVENTS
- Classifieds
- Subscribe
IBJNews
Indiana House dilutes drug tests for lawmakers
Associated Press
January 30, 2012
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
 Follow IBJ's Tweets on these topics: |
||
| @IBJNews | @Propertylines | @IBJTheScore |
| @IBJArts | @IBJHealthcare | @IBJDining |
| @IBJLists | @IBJSmallbiz | |
-
First, the Athenaeum is going to have to get past the hurdle with the Lockerbie residents and the agreement that the parcel would be residential. Second, and in my opinion, this prime piece of property should include parking, PLUS, a black box theater(s), some market rate and affordable artist housing and a plan to renovate and reconfigure the second story theater. I would negotiate to add the DeHaan property surface parking lot into the development mix, place a one story surface parking garage on the DeHaan lot on the street level (for the Dehaan tenants use during the daytime) and add a second story to the garage that would become an addition to the current second story theater and then change the direction of the theater by moving the stage across the alley and on top of the DeHaan lot parking. You can add all the stage elements that are currently missing from the Athenaeum stage to make it more attractive for use by Ballet, Opera and traveling productions. Plus, the theater changes would probably help solve some of the soundproofing issues. Alas,it does not seem to be a part of the strategic plan to conduct a study to determine best use of the property. Seems like the current plan is a quick and easy move that ignores the property best use/potential and any strategic property planning for the effect on future generations.
-
I recall that MSA's pilings are still in the ground and hard to remove. It’s not likely any proposal will include significant underground construction/parking because of this. Start adding 2 floors of retail, 8 floors of parking and 5-10 floors of possible hotel, and/or 10-20 floors of residential, and you are at 30 floors already with possible expansion of all the uses. But then again I could be wrong.
-
Accoriding to their website there is no deadline to the Do Not Call list. What is this article referring to??
-
On what planet are they entitled to this largesse from the stockholders? These people make multi-million dollar salaries: Pay for your own personal travel.
-
It matters because they're already paid enormously fat salaries: Pay for your own personal travel. Being "taxed on it" isn't a valid excuse--so what? They're still being gifted a raft of luxury perks from somebody else's money on top of an enormous, lavish salary.
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
IBJ Conversations
8 Comments
Add Comment
you have to have a background check/drug test for just about every job, even as a state employee. why then there is no background check/drug test for legislators,
answer is, BECAUSE THEY MAKE THE LAW'S and don't like being treated like Normal people, they are, ABOVE THE LAW, don't you people know that by now... if they were tested, a lot would lose there jobs.
testing welfare people is about keeping the money. it's cost cutting, the less they have to pay out the more they keep, this law has nothing to do with getting people off drugs or finding clean people, it's about the state keep as much money as the can. Welfare, Unemployed is a shell game, they keep moving the target so you have to jump thru hoops, all along the state is wishing you make the wrong move. then "denied' that way, they keep more money. it's not about helping people at there lowest for a Republican, to a Republican it's 'THERE' money, not the tax payers. Yes, there are some deadbeats, but the same could be said about our legislators.
Proud resident of the Mississippi of the north!