IS IT TRUE we are completely stunned with the results of our most recent “READERS POLL”?   …the poll question was “Do you support members of our local law enforcement”?  …1,054 CCO readers voted on this poll question?  …1,013voted “YES” and a mere 41 people voted “NO”? …we are very appreciative to learn that around 96% of the CCO readers are extremely supportive of our “First Responders”?

IS IT TRUE tomorrow evening the top leadership position of the local FOP will be changing?  … we expect an extremely close vote for President? …D J Thompson and Chuck Knoll are the announced candidates for FOP President and either one would do an outstanding job in this position?

IS IT TRUE we are told that the unexpected financial shortfall for City of Evansville Employees Healthcare fund for November 15, 2016 to December 31, 2016 may be around 1 1/2 million dollars?

IS IT TRUE we wonder how will the City of Evansville get the additional money to pay the many millions of dollars stilled owed to City employee Healthcare Fund for 2016?

IS IT TRUE where will the City of Evansville get the money to make up the Riverboat Fund and the Water and Sewer Utilities Department advaancements used to pay medical bills for 2016?

IS IT TRUE we are told that 2017 budget year will be a financial disaster for the City of Evansville? …get ready for cross the board tax hikes this coming year?

IS IT TRUE we were told that the real reason why the city didn’t convince the 2017 Jehovah Witness National Convention to stay at the new Downtown Hotel was because of economics?  …we heard that the Hotel marketing people attempted to get around $155 to $175 per room from people attending this Convention in which the church leadership quickly rejected?  ,,,it looks like Vanderburgh County Convention and Visitors Chief Bob Warren better start sharping his pencil if he wants to make the new downtown hotel competitive?

IS IT TRUE we are told that a couple of individuals are concerned about the poor attendence at the Evansville Thunderbolt Hockey home games?  …we hear they may requests the owner of the Evansville Thunderbolts and Venuworks to present them with a detailed statements concerning how much they are paying the city to lease the Ford Center?

IS IT TRUE  local attorney Scott Danks continues to be the front runner to be elected the next Chairman of the Vanderburgh County Democratic party?  …if he decides to run and wins he shall make one “heck’ of a party Chairman?

FOOTNOTE:  Todays “READERS POLL” question is :How do you rank the Vanderburgh County Commission job performance in 2016?

Indiana Clerk Who Refused Same-Sex Marriage license loses lawsuit

Dave Stafford for www.theindianalawyer.com

A southern Indiana deputy clerk who was fired after she refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple lost her civil-rights lawsuit against the county clerk. Her suit claimed religious discrimination on the basis of her avowed Christian belief that same-sex marriage is “against God’s law,” which is “above legal law.”

Harrison County deputy clerk Linda G. Summers refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple that came to the courthouse in Corydon on Dec. 8, 2014. Two months earlier, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to take the appeal of Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648, 672 (7th Cir. 2014), in which the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage.  

Shortly after the ruling, and based on instructions to county clerks from the office of Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, Harrison County’s elected clerk, Sally Whitis, sent an email to employees that said issuing licenses to same-sex couples was a duty of employment.

The email read in part, “Even though it may be against your personal beliefs, we are required by state law to process (same-sex marriage) applications. We are only doing the paperwork and not performing their ceremony. I expect everyone to please comply.”

Despite the ruling and instruction to staff, Summers told Whitis that she could not process the license for a same-sex couple that came to the office weeks later. When she refused, Whitis took the form from Summers and processed it herself, according to the record. Afterward, Whitis told Summers such a refusal couldn’t happen again, because it was her job.

The next day, Summers gave Whitis a letter that requested a religious exemption from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, after which Whitis fired her for insubordination. Summers then filed a religious discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Judge Richard Young of the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Indiana, who authored the Baskin opinion, on Thursday granted summary judgment in favor of Whitis and the Harrison County defendants.

“In the end, Summers should have put her personal feelings aside and heeded the command of her employer. She was certainly free to disagree with the Seventh Circuit’s decision, but that did not excuse her from complying with it.  When Summers refused to process a marriage application for a same-sex couple, Defendants were within their rights to terminate her employment as a deputy clerk for insubordination,” Young wrote.

He wrote the court didn’t doubt the sincerity of Summers’ religious belief that people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry. “However, that belief, no matter how sincerely espoused, does not objectively conflict with the purely administrative duty to process marriage licenses. Summers’ desire to avoid handling forms related to activities of which she personally disapproves is not protected by federal law. Title VII is not a license for employees to perform only those duties that meet their private approval. Therefore, the court holds Summers has failed to establish that her religious practices were in conflict with her duties as a deputy clerk.  This is fatal to her claim under Title VII.”

Young wrote that even if Summers established a religious conflict, it is with the 7th Circuit and not her employer, which was expressly forbid by the court from enforcing Indiana’s same-sex marriage ban. He relied on the holding of Miller v. Davis, 123 F. Supp. 3d 924 (E.D. Ky. 2015), a highly publicized case in which Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis was enjoined from her policy of not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex coupled based on her religious beliefs. In that case, the federal court ruled issuing a marriage license “merely signifies that the couple has met the legal requirements to marry. It is not a sign of moral or religious approval. The State is not requiring Davis to express a particular religious belief, nor is it forcing her to surrender her free exercise rights in order to perform her duties.”

Should Older Drivers Face Special Restrictions?

 By Jenni Bengal for Stateline/Pew Charitable Trusts

By 2030, more than 60 million older adults could be driving on the nation’s roadways. But don’t expect many more states to put added restrictions on their ability to get behind the wheel.

Legislatures have become increasingly reluctant to restrict driver’s licenses for seniors or impose extra requirements — such as vision or road tests — for getting them renewed based solely on their advancing age.

That’s partly because older people are generally considered safe drivers, more programs exist to improve their driving skills, and recent studies have shown that many of the restrictions aren’t as effective as once thought in preventing traffic fatalities. It’s also because a politically powerful group of advocates for seniors and motorists, such as AARP and AAA, argue that age shouldn’t be used as the sole measure of an older person’s fitness to handle a car.

“We believe that driving is about the ability and health of the driver, not their age,” said AARP spokeswoman Kristin S. Palmer. “We can’t stereotype older drivers.”

Jonathan Adkins, executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents highway safety offices, said another reason many legislatures have not passed age-based restrictions lately is that society has changed the way it defines “old.” Being 75 isn’t what it used to be, because people are more active and live longer than previous generations.

“We just elected the oldest president ever,” Adkins said, referring to Republican President-elect Donald Trump, who is 70.

Many states place some sort of restrictions on seniors when it comes to renewing their driver’s licenses, whether it’s requiring vision screening, making them renew their licenses more frequently, or demanding they show up in person at the Department of Motor Vehicles to renew their licenses. But most of the restrictions were approved at least several years ago.

In recent years, efforts to impose restrictions often failed. Legislatures in more than a dozen states considered legislation affecting older drivers in the last two years, but only a handful of bills passed, none of them controversial.

And some enabled more people to get licenses or gave them breaks based on their age. For instance, a measure in South Carolina allows people with certain vision problems to get or renew a license if they use a special device on their glasses. One in New Mexico lowered the eligibility age to 50 for drivers to qualify for reduced insurance rates if they take a driver’s education course.

In contrast, Vermont lawmakers killed a bill that would have demanded drivers 65 and older pass vision and road tests in order to obtain or renew their license. Tennessee lawmakers killed one that would have required people 76 and older to take a vision test.

But the fact remains as people age, their vision, hearing and reflexes often deteriorate. And states are faced with trying to balance ensuring the safety of older drivers and others on the road with not discriminating against people just because they are getting older.

“Age should not be the issue. It should be your ability to handle the car and drive safely,” said Jurek Grabowski, research director for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, a nonprofit research and education group.

Patterns and Risks
The nation’s senior population is projected to explode as 75 million baby boomers grow old. And traffic safety experts expect the number of at-risk drivers will also grow, as all indications are aging boomers who grew up behind the wheel want to continue to drive.

In the early 1970s, barely half of Americans 65 and older held a driver’s license. Nowadays, 84 percent do. By many measures, they have a good driving safety record.

Seniors typically follow the rules and wear seat belts, observe the speed limit, and don’t drink and drive, auto safety analysts say. Their crash rates have continued to drop over the years. And they are less likely than previous generations of seniors to be in a crash or to be killed or seriously injured in a crash because they’re generally healthier and cars are safer.

But older drivers are at higher risk of crashing than middle-aged people because of declining vision, hearing and cognitive ability and medical conditions that could affect their driving. When they are involved in a crash, they are more likely to be injured or killed than drivers in other age groups.

“Usually, if someone dies, it’s the older driver or their passengers, who tend to be older,” said Jessica Cicchino, a vice president at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit research group funded by auto insurance companies.

In 2014, 5,709 people 65 and older were killed and about 221,000 were injured in crashes.

Older drivers also are more likely than younger ones to be involved in certain types of collisions, such as crashes at intersections or those caused by failing to yield, according to the Insurance Institute.

Good or Bad Policies?
States vary considerably in what they require of older drivers to renew a license.

Nineteen have shorter renewal periods for drivers over a certain age, according to the Insurance Institute. Eighteen demand more frequent vision screening. And 15 states that allow drivers to renew by mail or online don’t offer that option to older drivers.

Illinois has one of the strictest renewal requirements of any state. Drivers 75 and older must take a road test to renew their license. It’s the type of law that AAA opposes.

“Many states have bills introduced seeking that. We spend a lot of time combating it,” said Jake Nelson, AAA’s traffic safety director. “It’s bad policy and it doesn’t enhance safety at all.”

Many age-based requirements haven’t proven effective, studies have found.

Only two have been shown to reduce fatal crashes: making drivers 85 and over renew in person and requiring people in that age group to take a vision test in states that don’t make them renew in person, said Cicchino of the Insurance Institute. Fatality rates for drivers 55 and older are no lower in states that mandate road or written tests or shortened renewal periods for older drivers, she said.

Some states, such as Alabama and Kentucky, impose no age-based requirements on older drivers. Others actually give them a break. Oklahoma, for example, reduces the license fee for drivers age 62 to 64 and waives it entirely for those 65 and older.

Some groups that oppose putting restrictions on older drivers based solely on their age endorse broader policies aimed at improving safety on the roads. AAA, for example, thinks all drivers should take a vision test when they renew, either at a DMV or at a doctor’s office. And it views the renewal process as a good way for DMV staffers to observe drivers to see whether they may have physical or mental impairments that could affect their driving ability.

“This isn’t about senior drivers, it’s about detecting at-risk drivers,” said Rich Romer, AAA’s state relations manager.

For seniors who might be a danger on the roads because of certain physical or mental conditions, both AAA and AARP support the concept of medical advisory boards that set standards for state licensing agencies and assess at-risk drivers’ ability to get behind the wheel. At least 38 states have set up some kind of advisory board.

“If you come to our attention and you should not be on the road, we have a process to get you off the road very fast,” said Dr. Carl Soderstrom, the chief of Maryland’s Medical Advisory Board. “The fact that we have taken the licenses away from thousands of very unsafe people over the years says the program is working.”

A Matter of Independence
Driving is an important way for older adults to remain independent and mobile, experts on aging say. Without a car, they can grow isolated and depressed, and their physical and mental health can deteriorate.

Instead of driving themselves, some may turn to taxis or ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft, or eventually, self-driving cars. Others may rely on volunteer driver programs or public transit.

“We want to get away from the idea of taking away mom and dad’s keys and focus on other alternatives to keep them mobile,” said Adkins, of the governors’ highway safety group. “But you also don’t want to take away their mobility and independence if they could be driving safely.”

AAA and AARP have created driver refresher classes for older adults to help them stay safe on the roads.

AARP’s “Smart Driver Course,” offered in classrooms or online, teaches strategies for reducing the likelihood of a crash and making adjustments to compensate for the effects aging may have on driving. The group runs about 30,000 courses a year and trains about half a million drivers, said Palmer, the group’s spokeswoman.

At least 34 states plus Washington, D.C., have passed laws allowing auto insurance companies to provide a premium discount to seniors who complete a state-approved driver safety course in a classroom.

A number of advanced technologies, such as collision warning systems and rearview cameras, also can help seniors drive safely for a longer period of time, a 2015 AAA Foundation report found.

But all the bells and whistles on new cars can be a distraction for some older drivers.

That’s why auto safety groups also recommend that transportation agencies take action on their own, by making letters on road signs larger, making pavement markings more visible, and adding left-turn lanes and signals at intersections. Another possibility: reconfiguring intersections as roundabouts, which reduce speeds and eliminate the complexities of turning at intersections.

“These are simple fixes to the roadways that states actually can make that can prevent older drivers’ deadliest crashes,” said the Insurance Institute’s Cicchino.