IBJNews

Lawmakers eye early finish after contentious start

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana state lawmakers could go home early after toughing out a grueling battle over right-to-work legislation this year.

Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma told House members Thursday he and Senate President Pro Tem David Long were planning to wrap things up by March 9. The 2012 session is formally scheduled to end by March 14.

Bosma said lawmakers were "emotionally drained" following the battle over right-to-work legislation that dominated the first half of the session. He also expects the move could save roughly $10,000 in costs that would have otherwise gone to pay staff and expenses paid daily to lawmakers.

"Everyone is a little more emotionally drained" after the right-to-work debate, Bosma said Thursday.

Right-to-work dominated the House from the start of the 2012 session, Jan. 4, until the end of the month, when it finally approved the legislation. In the intervening weeks House Democrats boycotted the House eight days to block the measure, hundreds of union protesters chanted in the hallways almost daily and House Republicans levied $1,000-a-day fines on the absent Democrats.

And while Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels signed the right-to-work legislation Feb. 1, the issue is far from over as the Indiana Supreme Court weighs the fines for Democrats and unions plot to put the issue center stage for November's statewide elections.

The top issues left on lawmakers' plates this session are paying for full-day kindergarten, restructuring automatic tax refunds, closing a teacher pensions funding gap and overhauling local government, Bosma said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • TOP ISSUES LEFT ?!?!?
    How about including the passage of a broadly supported state smoking ban legislation as a top issue remaining? Clearly indianapolis can't seem to get a comprhehensive one done on its own...Lead us memebrs of the statehouse and don't put this issue off another year.

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. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT