We hope that today’s “READERS FORUM” will provoke honest and open dialogue concerning issues that we, as responsible citizens of this community, need to address in a rational and responsible way?

WHAT”S ON YOUR MIND TODAY?

Todays “Readers Poll” question is: When elected officials get a large campaign donation ($500,000) how do you consider it?

Please go to our link of our media partner Channel 44 News located in the upper right-hand corner of the City-County Observer so you can get the up-to-date news, weather, and sports. We are pleased to provide obituaries from several area funeral homes at no costs.  Over the next several weeks we shall be adding additional obituaries from other local funeral homes.  Please scroll down the paper and you shall see a listing of them.

.If you would like to advertise on the CCO please contact us at City-County Observer@live.com

FOOTNOTE:  Any comments posted in this column do not represent the views or opinions of the City-County Observer or our advertisers.”READERS FORUM” 

Commentary: Governing From Behind

By Mary Beth Schneider
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS— Last July, Gov. Eric Holcomb was shocked by the vandalism to a Carmel synagogue. He spoke with a forcefulness, unusual for him, about addressing the underlying cause: Hate.

“No law can stop evil, but we should be clear that our state stands with the victims and their voices ill not be silenced.”

He vowed to enact a hate crimes law that would get Indiana off the list of only five states with no such law on the books.

 

I wrote then that for the first time, he seemed comfortable leading the charge, rather than trying to build consensus behind the scenes.

“I am ready to use the time between now and leading up to the session to help this across the line,” Holcomb told me then.

This week, he signed into law a bill that the Anti-Defamation League says is inadequate to get Indiana off what Holcomb head-shakingly calls “the naughty list.” And there is scant evidence that Holcomb did much to get the bill he wanted, at least publicly.

Yes, he called for a hate crimes law in his January State of the State speech. And when asked by reporters about the issue, he always affirmed his support. But mostly he followed, not led, the legislature. He didn’t testify in the only hearing they had. He didn’t go to the behind-closed-doors Republican caucuses to fight for the language he wanted — the same inclusive language he has in administrative policy that specifically lists the traits that are too often targets of hate, including gender identity.

And when the House avoided all public input by shoving its version of the hate crimes bill — the version now in law that avoids all mention of gender identity, gender and age — into a drug sentencing bill, Holcomb applauded it.

Holcomb had a huge opportunity to define himself as the kind of bold leader that the man he once worked for, Mitch Daniels, was as governor.

He whiffed.

Holcomb signed the bill quietly, with no media, no public celebration. That spoke volumes. He, as well as Indiana businesses and universities, wanted a fully inclusive hate crimes law in order to shed this state’s image that Hoosier Hospitality isn’t for everybody. So why wouldn’t he take a victory lap if this bill accomplishes that?

Holcomb isn’t the only elected official to flub this leadership test. Where in the world was Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett? Seems like between filling potholes he had time to come to the Statehouse and make the case for an inclusive hate crimes bill. His Republican opponent in this year’s mayoral election, Sen. Jim Merritt, went on Twitter to criticize Hogsett for his silence, a rebuke Hogsett deserved. But Merritt wasn’t exactly a hero on this either. He sat mute in the Senate as they concurred on the House version, and voted for it.

And House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, let that chamber cut the public out of the process entirely.

Sen. Jean Breaux, an Indianapolis Democrat, nailed it in her impassioned floor speech Tuesday as the Senate prepared to concur with the House version and send it to Holcomb.

When the process of passing this bill first began, she said, she was “so proud and excited” to support Holcomb and Sen. Ron Alting, the Lafayette Republican who never gave up his fight for an inclusive bill.

“But then the governor abandoned his commitment and instead supported this empty hollow bill that came out of the House that pretends to be a hate crime bill, but you can’t have a true hate crimes bill if you don’t include everyone,” Breaux said. “I wondered what could make the governor flip-flop. One day he is in support of a list, the next day he’s not.”

“Shame on you, Gov. Holcomb,” she said.

Holcomb and other Republicans insist the new law does include everyone, though gender, gender identity and age are not included. A letter from former Supreme Court Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. — who, like Hogsett, once worked for Democrat Gov. Evan Bayh — says judges will interpret it as all-inclusive.

Maybe. But combating hate crimes shouldn’t depend on what a judge may do. Sometimes a state needs to spell out what a judge must do.

Holcomb apparently still believes that some things must be spelled out. He’s not changing his own administrative policy that prohibits discrimination by specific classes in favor of adopting the language in the law he deemed good enough for the rest of us. And yes, that policy includes gender identity.

FOOTNOTE: Mary Beth Schneider is an editor at TheStatehouseFile.com, a news site powered by Franklin College student journalists.

A LIFE OR AN ANCHOR

by GAIL RIECKEN, EDITOR OF THE CCO STATEHOUSE NEWS

Discussion over the payday lending bill, Senate Bill 613 is continuing April 9 despite Financial Institutions Committee members hearing a lot of negatives about this consumer credit bill.

Groups that have testified against the bill – the Institute for Working Families, veterans, churches, community groups, and consumers- all favor seeing it die.

So, why is SB 613 still alive?

I imagine one reason would be the Committee Chairman is convinced that he can find the “sweet spot” that would please both sides. Another reason could be that members have heard the same comments I heard when I was a member of this Committee. The comments were: “Gail, you have to understand there are issues people have getting credit, and when they need money, more likely an emergency, there isn’t any in reserve. If you can’t pay the light or water bill if the car breaks down and you can’t get to work or there is no money to pay book rental and you don’t qualify for help or the a/c breaks down in the summertime, what choice do you have”.

This may not be familiar to you and me but to families who are living one paycheck to the next, families who are at risk, it is a common fear.  People living at risk of losing everything should be a serious concern for us all. It isn’t just the right thing to be concerned, it is the smart thing.

No one can feel secure about the future of our economy knowing that over 43% of people in Evansville (39% in Indiana overall) are living near or on the poverty line, people who can’t afford the basics – housing, food, high electric  and water bills, health care, child care and transportation.

We can’t ignore the consequences of such a large number of people at risk.
Maybe it is time that the Governor calls for a commission to develop new strategies to address families at risk, similar to his call from the comprehensive report on the status of children in the Department of Child Services. And while the government is doing more that supports our economy and results in fewer families at risk and fewer payday borrowers, you and I can do something in a small way to help.

The legislature passed the law a few years back to encourage and “train”, if you will, people to save money. Called a Prize-linked savings account, it is a fun way that a family can save for an emergency.

Not just for a family, the account can be for a young person starting out – a newly graduated student saving money to move to her first real job or a young person aging out of foster care saving for the deposit on his first apartment. As examples: Attached below is a news release from FORUM Credit Union in Indianapolis explaining their Prize-linked savings program.

(https://www.forumcu.com/News/2019/FORUM-Credit-Union-Announces-2018-Member-Giveback)

Let’s encourage more credit unions and banks to establish their “Indiana Save to Win” program and encourage more people to sign up.

According to recent figures, the Indiana Save to Win program (prize-linked savings) is definitely a success.  As of the end of January, there are 20 credit unions in Indiana participating (6 of them in SW Indiana) and there have been more than 2,500 “Save to Win” accounts opened with $9.2 million saved so far. There have been almost 800 prize winners winning more than $85,000 in prize money.

In Indiana, the law allows for debt reduction and financial literacy programs to be a part of any Save to Win product.

Institute Senior Policy Analyst Erin Macy asked the question in her testimony before the Financial Institutions Committee last week. “ Is the best solution we can offer them [Hoosiers struggling with debts they have] is more and even higher-cost debt?  That’s not a lifeline”, she added, “It’s an anchor.”

“The Legislature most certainly deserves to be fully informed of the facts revealed in this litigation in order to continue its urgent efforts to fight this Public Health Emergency,” according to the motion.

Oklahoma District Judge Thad Balkman has not yet responded to the state’s motion to unseal the documents.

“Our Legislature, Governor, policymakers and doctors need to know the truth about how one particular company, J&J, inserted itself into our State and sought to influence every opioid-related decision the State made or considered—from scheduling to swallowing,” attorneys for Oklahoma wrote. The documents also would be made available to the public.

Among the questions Oklahoma wants answered is whether Johnson & Johnson’s marketing targeted children, veterans or the elderly. The motion also asks whether the company blocked legislation and regulatory action aimed at limiting opioid availability, whether it partnered with Purdue, and whether it paid “‘neutral’ third parties as part of its internal marketing plan.”

Hunter and the outside lawyers representing Oklahoma declined several interview requests.

In its own filing, Johnson & Johnson — which divested both Tasmanian Alkaloids and Noramco in 2016 — argues that Oklahoma’s goal in seeking to unseal the documents is to “batter Oklahomans with sensationalistic headlines and to poison potential jurors” against its opioid unit, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, in advance of the May 28 trial.

Janssen dismissed Oklahoma’s charge that the company’s ownership of poppy fields made it a conspirator in the opioid epidemic.

“As a supplier, we did not have any role in the manufacturing, development, sales and marketing of other manufacturers’ finished products,” Janssen said in a statement emailed by a spokesman to Stateline. “The allegations made against our company are baseless and unsubstantiated.”

The company also noted that it complied fully with strict U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration controls in importing poppy straw and other raw materials used to produce opioid anesthesia and pain medicines.

Legal experts said other states might follow Oklahoma’s lead, but that it will be difficult to prove that Johnson & Johnson’s poppy fields made it a major contributor to the opioid epidemic.

University of Kentucky law professor Richard Ausness called Oklahoma’s strategy “over the top.”

“The only way Oklahoma could win that case is to prove some kind of conspiracy. It looks more like they are trying to browbeat Johnson & Johnson into settling,” Ausness said.

“I can see why J&J would be particularly susceptible to that kind of pressure because they sell consumer products and they’re considered a family company,” he said. “If they’re painted as a villain, that’s obviously going to hurt them.”

Until recently, the state and federal opioid lawsuits across the country mostly targeted Purdue Pharma, the company that developed and profited from OxyContin.

But last month, Purdue Pharma’s president and chief executive, Craig Landau, told theWashington Post that the company might pursue a Chapter 11 bankruptcy claim, a maneuver that could halt litigation against it. Now, many of the plaintiffs in a consolidated national case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio — the National Prescription Opiate Litigation — also are suing the Sackler family, which owns the company.

Food Inspection Reports 4-4-19