This weeks show special guest will be candidate in the Republican Primary for the 3rd District County Commissioner seat Bruce Ungetthiem.    The Tri-StateVoices show was created by the City County Observer, recorded and edited by Wood and Woods law firm and produced by ME TV TRI-STATE.

The shows host is well known lawyer Mike Woods. The Tri-StateVoices program features current topics and issues of importance to this region.  This public affairs program is  a 30 minutes in length.  The City County Observer and Woods and Woods Tri-StateVoices show will aires on ME TV TRI-STATE  each week at 11:30 am and can viewed on the following TV Channels: Channels 36.1 and 20.1.  WOW 105.  Insight -186  and Time Warner -3 and 14.  If you miss the TRI-STATE VOICES  show on ME TV TRI-STATE you may view it on the City County Observer newly creative “MOLE TV” video channel located on this site.

Current County Commissioner Marsha Abell declined the invitation to appear on this program with Mr. Ungethiem.  Program host Mike Woods states “that it’s extremely disappointing  that Commissioner Abell declined the opportunity to come on the Tri-State Voices Show. This was a great chance for Ms. Abell to allow the voters of Vanderburgh County to hear what she has achieved while she was in office over the 4 years.  It was also a great opportunity to learn more about what she wants to achieve during the next 4 years if she was re-elected to this position.  We are disappointed in Ms. Abell decision not to come on the show”.

Mr. Ungenthiem’s Qualifications

Bruce was born in Vanderburgh County 1955 and grew up in the Darmstadt area. He graduated from Scott elementary school in 1969 and Central High School in 1973. It was at Central high school where he got his first taste of public service while working for the late David Koehler on his city council campaign. Bruce applied and was accepted into Rose Hulman Institute of Technology and in 1977 graduated with a BS degree in Mechanical engineering and a minor in political Science.

Upon graduation, Bruce accepted a job offer from Mead Johnson as an engineer and returned to Vanderburgh County. He worked for Mead Johnson in various capacities over the next 33 years including, Project Engineer, Automation Manager, Latin American Regional Technical Manager, and North American Regional Technical Manager. During that time he managed many multimillion dollar projects and even larger capital budgets for Mead Johnson. As a result of these duties he has traveled and worked in several foreign counties including Mexico, Ecuador, Argentina, China, the Netherlands, and Saudi Arabia. Bruce retired from Mead Johnson in 2010 at the age of 55 to pursue other interests.

The same year he started with Mead Johnson he married his hometown sweetheart, Debbie, and they have been married for 36 years. They have two grown children, Jeremy and Derek who both reside in Vanderburgh County and six grand children ranging from age 8 to 11 months. Bruce and Debbie now enjoy being grandparents and spending time with the grandchildren.

Bruce continued his interest in public service when he returned to Vanderburgh County after graduating college. He joined the Scott Township Volunteer fire department where he served for over five years as a second class fireman and a certified EMT. Once his children got old enough, he gave up the fire department to serve as coach, organizer, commissioner and whatever else was needed to various athletic organizations as the two boys grew up. He was one of the founders of MOYBA (McCutchanville Oak Hill Youth Basketball Association) and Central Junior Basketball Association. He also served as the President of the Scott Township Youth Baseball program for 7 years. When the boys reached high school age, Bruce supported the athletic programs they were involved in at Central High School.

In 1996, commercial development came to his neighborhood in the form of a grain milling plant and there were many odor issues as a result. Bruce organized a group of concerned citizens and persuaded the owner of the milling plant and local county officials to fix the problem by spending several million dollars in improvements to their waste handling system to eliminate the odor issue. Shortly thereafter, Bruce ran in the Republican primary for County Council 2nd district against a 25 year incumbent. Although he did not win, the experience taught him a lot about local government.

In 2008, talks began to surface about another attempt to consolidate local government and Bruce became involved. After attending several meetings and realizing that local citizen input was not being listened to, Bruce decided to form a committee to change the plan. The original committee was called We The People and its mission was to change the plan so that it would be acceptable to all county residents. This attempt was not successful and the plan went forward to the ballot with few changes. Because the plan was not acceptable to many, Bruce and a group of concerned citizens then formed CORE (Citizens opposed to Reorganization in Evansville were Bruce served as Co Chairman and spokesperson. They worked diligently in a grass roots effort to inform people about the details of the plan and why it was not good for the county. Despite being outspent by a 4 to 1 margin, the question on the ballot was defeated by a 2 to 1 margin. Once this was accomplished, Bruce lead the same group of people to the Statehouse to change the reorganization laws so that in the future any reorganization plans will have to satisfy all areas of the county. This CORE organization is still active and working on other issues of local interest.

Now with the experiences he has had, Bruce has decided to again volunteer for public service again by filing for County Commissioner Second district. Bruce will use his many experiences in industry and the public sector to provide leadership in the community that is in tune with the public and a willingness to listen.

(Washington, DC) –On Wednesday afternoon, Congressman Larry Bucshon, M.D. spoke on the House floor in support of H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers (SAW) Act.  H.R. 2575 repeals the 30-hour definition of “full-time employment” in the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as ObamaCare, and restores the traditional 40-hour definition protecting hourly wages for American workers.

Text of Dr. Bucshon’s floor speech is included below and the video can be accessed online here.

“Thank your Mr. Chairman. I rise today in strong support of this legislation.

“Across my district, I have heard from thousands of employees who have had their hours cut from 40 hours to 29 hours.  

“Greencastle School Corporation – were forced to cut the hours of 54 employees from full time to part time.

“Terre Haute School Corporation – were forced to cut the hours of hundreds employees, many of them are bus drivers who are no longer allowed to provide transportation for after school activities.

“Washington-Greene County School Corporation – were forced to cut the hours of 150 employees from 40 hours to 29 hours.

“Eastern Green County School Corporation – announced that all of their employees who aren’t receiving health insurance, will have their hours cut to 28 hours.

“Dubois County Schools- were forced to reduce the hours for instructional assistants, cafeteria employees and custodial staff.

“These are employees who took a job, understanding from the beginning that they weren’t going to receive health insurance and they were ok with that. 

“In fact, the majority of these employees already receive health insurance from their spouse’s employer and many of them have worked for their school corporation for several years.

 “School Corporations do not have the luxury to raise taxes to pay for these provisions, they aren’t a major business that can raise their rates and they simply cannot afford the Affordable Care Act.

“These Hoosiers work every day with students and because of this provision within the Affordable Care Act, our students will suffer.”

BACKGROUND:

A vote on H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act, is expected sometime Thursday afternoon. More information on the bill can be found here

It’s A Myth That GOP Is Party Of The Wealthy

by Marilyn Odendahl, www.theindianalawyer.com

During the debate in the Statehouse about House Joint Resolution 3, the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage in the Indiana Constitution, lawmakers were told repeatedly that whether or not the Legislature passed the constitutional provision there would be lawsuits. The Indiana General Assembly neither approved nor rejected HJR 3 as introduced – the version approved by lawmakers in 2011 – opting instead to alter the language in the amendment which sent the ratification process back to the beginning.  But still the lawsuits have come. Same-sex couples began filing their challenges to Indiana’s Defense of Marriage Act just as the 2014 legislative session drew to a close.  Kentucky attorney Laura Landenwich said whether the same-sex marriage ban is a statute or a constitutional amendment does not matter. The fact is, she said, the prohibition creates two classes of people, and there is not a rational basis to create two classes.  Landenwich is a member of the legal team that filed the first suit, Love v. Pence, 4:14-CV-15.
To date, five complaints have been filed, all in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, where they have been assigned to Chief Judge Richard Young. The couples seeking to have the law overturned come from across the state with some living in metropolitan areas and others residing in very small rural enclaves.

Melody Layne (left) and her wife Tara Betterman are part of the lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Indiana seeking to overturn Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage. (Photo submitted)

All the lawsuits primarily challenge Indiana’s DOMA as violating the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Similar suits making the same argument have been successful in knocking down same-sex marriage bans in a number of states including Kentucky, Texas, Utah and Virginia. Ironically, the odds for success for same-sex couples in Indiana may be hampered by the lack of an amendment to the state Constitution. The states that have lost in federal court have had both statutes and constitutional amendments that defined marriage. Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Daniel Conkle explained the courts tend to view a constitutional amendment as the state immunizing the political process. Gays and lesbians who want to abolish a same-sex marriage ban will have a more difficult task removing language from the Constitution as compared to going through the legislative process to change a statute. Provisions considered discriminatory that are encased in a state’s constitution seem to be more vulnerable in federal courts, Conkle said. The courts tend to find the challenged amendments violate the U.S. constitutional guarantees on the grounds that the political process has been skewered.  Conkle pointed out that while Indiana’s prohibition on same-sex marriage might have been in further jeopardy from the federal court if the amendment had been approved, the state law is still being fought with the same arguments. Proponents  of same-sex marriage claim the ban violates the Constitution by discriminating against homosexuals.By not being allowed to marry or not having their marriages performed in other states recognized, the couples bringing the lawsuits are barred from  the multitude of rights and privileges enjoyed by married heterosexuals, plaintiffs’ attorneys said. Indiana has yet to file an answer to the complaints but Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has vowed to defend the state’s marriage law. “The mere fact that plaintiffs challenge an Indiana statute does not mean the Legislature did anything wrong when it adopted a statute years before,” Zoeller said in a statement. “Plaintiffs are exercising their right to assert their federal claims in court, just as my office is doing its duty to defend our state’s duly-enacted statutes and defend the Legislature’s authority.”

Religious beliefs
April 10 is scheduled to be the first time an overturned marriage ban goes before a federal appellate court post-Windsor, in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional for violating the 14th Amendment. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in Kitchen, et al. v. Herbert, et al., 13-4178, the case that overturned Utah’s prohibition on same-sex marriage.
A week later on April 17, the same court will hear Bishop, et al. v. Smith, et als marriage law. sex couples can procreate naturally and heterosexual marriage is the way states can ensure the parents remain together to care for and raise their children. Both Landenwich and Richard Mann, an Indianapolis attorney representing same-sex couples in Bowling, Bowling and Bruner v. Pence, et al., 1:14-CV-0405, scoffed at that argument. ” s marriage law violated the Indiana Constitution. The trial court dismissed the challenge, and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15, 35  (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). ” sex marriage are based on the religious and moral code established by Christian beliefs. They contend the Establishment Clause prohibits government from choosing one set of religious values over another. However, Conkle countered the mere invocation of Christianity is not enough to toss the marriage ban. Legislatures can be  animated by their religious values when making decisions and courts have underscored that by finding religious reasons alone   do not render a statute or amendment unconstitutional. inspired values.

Quickly changing
Kenneth Falk, ACLU of Indiana legal director, argued Morrison before the Court of Appeals and, nine years later, is the lead attorney in the same-sex marriage suit, Fujii, et al. v. Pence, et al., 1:14-CV-404. He will be trying Fujii in a markedly different atmosphere where more of society is accepting of homosexual marriage.“It’s amazing to see how quickly things have changed, and it’s amazing to see so many young people, regardless  of political affiliation, who just don’t understand why this is a big deal at all,” he said. “It’s heartening.” Falk expects the trend to continue. Just as people now question why states in the past banned interracial marriages, future generations will wonder why there was contention over same-sex marriage.
The pace of change has not escaped Zoeller. He believes the challenges already in the federal appeals courts will likely reach the Supreme Court of the United States well ahead of Indiana’s cases. Still, he said he will defend Indiana’s law. “This is not personal advocacy on my part or that of the lawyers who represent the state,” Zoeller said. “Indiana courts previously have upheld Indiana’s marriage law, and the U.S. Supreme Court has previously permitted states to  license marriage as between one man and one woman. My office will continue to defend the state’s authority to set the licensing for marriage until and unless the U.S. Supreme Court rules otherwise.” To Falk, change in favor of same-sex marriage is inevitable. The decisions by the federal courts reflect the mainstream thought and if the courts do not uphold same-sex marriage, eventually legislatures will as more people with accepting attitudes get elected to public office, he said.•