« Law - More Supreme Court stories today | Main | Ind. Law - 7th Circuit posts two today »

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Ind. Law - Some other 2005 bills of interest

Monday the Indianapolis Star had a story headlined "1,500 bills big and small vie for attention." Here are two bills that got my attention, but not through any newspaper stories I recall reading. Both are Senate bills.

One is Senator David C. Ford's (R, Dist. 19, Hartford City) SB 381, concerning a statewide broadband system. The bill passed second reading yesterday and should be eligible for Senate passage tomorrow.

The other is Senator Sue Landske's (R, Dist. 6, Cedar Lake) SB 259, concerning rulemaking by instrumentalities of the state. This bill passed the Senate on Feb. 15th, 48 to 0.

Senate Bill 381 was placed back on second reading and substantially revised yesterday by its author, Senator Ford. Here is the digest to the current version of the bill:

Statewide broadband system. Establishes a coordinating body to determine the feasibility of implementing a statewide broadband network, scheduled to dissolve July 15, 2007. Establishes the Indiana broadband development program, a separate body corporate and politic, to be administered by the Indiana development finance authority. The broadband development program is established to encourage the development of affordable broadband services and networks in underserved areas in Indiana. The broadband development program coordinates the financing of broadband infrastructure development and otherwise facilitates the establishment of broadband service in underserved areas in Indiana.
According to Sen. Ford, "My reason for pushing this technology is to advance broadband technology to what I perceive to be the next level in Indiana at this point." He adds "The bill is supported by many groups including mayors, [the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns,] economic develpment directors, rural advocates such as the Farm Bureau and even the Governor's office but faces strong and organized opposition from the major telephone companies." A commentator notes: "[SB 381] offers a very interesting alternative to the telecom-backed anti-competition bill that we've been following for the past month or so." That bill was HB 1148, which proposed limits on municipally-offered internet services, and which is last-referenced in this Feb. 17th ILB entry.

SB 259 is already in the House. Its current digest reads:

Rulemaking by instrumentalities of the state. Specifies that an instrumentality of state government (including a body corporate and politic or other corporation exercising essential government functions) is an agency for purposes of the rulemaking procedures set forth in IC 4- 22-2. Prohibits certain instrumentalities from adopting rules without complying with IC 4-22-2. Authorizes instrumentalities to adopt rules necessary or appropriate to perform their duties and exercise their powers. Requires instrumentalities of state government to submit rules: (1) in effect before July 1, 2005; and (2) adopted at or after a public meeting of the instrumentality, but not in compliance with IC 4-22-2; to the publisher of the Indiana Register and the Indiana Administrative Code for assignment of a document control number. Requires an instrumentality to submit the rule to the secretary of state for filing after the assignment of the document control number. Requires the secretary of state to submit copies of a rule accepted for filing to the attorney general. Allows, rather than requires, the attorney general to review the rule for legality and to disapprove a rule for specified reasons. Provides that if the attorney general does not issue a notice of disapproval before October 2, 2006, the rule: (1) is considered approved; and (2) must be published in the Indiana Register and the Indiana Administrative Code. (The introduced version of this bill was prepared by the code revision commission.)
As I read it, this bill would bring "instrumentalities of state government" - quasi-state entities such as the State Office Building Commission, Indiana Economic Development Corporation, Indiana Health Facility Financing Authority, etc. under the provisions of IC 4-22-2, relating to the adoption of administrative rules by "state agencies" (now to include "instrumentalities of state government").

As an example, the Teachers' Retirement Fund Board law, at IC 21-6.1-3-7(a)(1) currently reads:

(a) The board may do any of the following:
(1) Adopt and enforce rules and regulations regarding the fund's administration and the control and investment of the fund.
After amendment, that provision will read:
(a) The board may do any of the following:
(1) Adopt rules under IC 4-22-2 necessary or appropriate to perform its duties and exercise its powers.
The bill also has a "fallaway" SECTION 28 (see p. 31 of the Feb. 11th printing) that provides that 30 specifically named quasi-public entities (including those I've named above) are to submit any current "rules" they wish to retain through the process described in the SECTION, with the first step to be completed by Oct. 1, 2005. The final steps are publication in the Indiana Register and codification in the Indiana Administrative Code.

[One thing I am not clear on is found on p. 10 of the Feb. 11th printing. Does the new subsection (29) added on that page automatically give unrestricted emergency rulemaking authority to all instrumentalities of state government?]

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 23, 2005 12:35 PM
Posted to Indiana Law