By Lesley Weidenbener
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS – A Central Indiana business group announced Tuesday that it will join an effort opposing a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Hundreds of people gathered in August in downtown Indianapolis at the Artsgarden to kick start Freedom Indiana, a gay rights coalition that is launching a campaign to stop a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Photo by Jesse Wilson, TheStatehouseFile.com

Officials at the Indy Chamber – which represents 3,000 businesses with 235,000 workers – said members are uncertain about the proposed amendment’s impacts on employer-provided benefits, human rights ordinances and legal contracts.

“The Indy Chamber is in the business of strengthening our economy and attracting top talent to our region,” said John Thompson, chair of the Indy Chamber’s board of directors. “The proposed marriage amendment does nothing to help show the nation that Indiana is a place that welcomes all, not just some, and we must be mindful of how actions such as this will impact our competitiveness on a national and global level.”

The Indy Chamber’s executive committee approved the position statement on Tuesday.

Supporters of the constitutional amendment responded by saying the chamber’s decision was “unfortunate.”

“According to Kiplinger Financial Magazine, the top five states for best business growth in 2012 and 2013 all have marriage protection amendments,” said Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana. “The myth that public policy support for traditional marriage is somehow bad for business is nothing more than a red herring and a scare tactic.”

Clark said the “future of marriage belongs in the hands of Hoosier voters, not the board room of the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce.”

Still, the local chamber joins a growing list of companies and organizations taking a stand against the amendment, which has already passed the Republican-controlled General Assembly once. It needs a second approval in 2014 to be placed on the ballot for voter ratification next year.

Republican legislative leaders said earlier this year that they expected the amendment would pass in 2014. But more recently, the GOP majority caucuses have been meeting behind closed doors to discuss the amendment.

Any delay or changes in the amendment means the lengthy amendment process starts over.

Opponents of the amendment have joined forces as Freedom Indiana, which issued a statement Tuesday about the chamber’s position.

“The Indy Chamber represents the voices of hundreds of businesses in Indianapolis and the Central Indiana region, and we look forward to working with them to support Indiana’s economic future by protecting liberty for all Hoosiers,” the group said.

Already, two of Central Indiana’s largest employers – Eli Lilly & Co. and Cummins – have opposed the amendment and joined Freedom Indiana. But the Indiana Chamber of Commerce – which represents businesses statewide – has not joined.

During the summer, Kevin Brinegar, the group’s president, told The Times in northwest Indiana the chamber is likely to remain neutral on the marriage amendment.

“We have members on both sides of the issue, so we have not adopted a position either in favor or opposed to the proposed constitutional amendment,” Brinegar told The Times.

On Tuesday, state chamber spokeswoman Rebecca Patrick said, “That statement is still true.”

The Indy Chamber said in a policy statement that the marriage amendment could make it harder for Indiana to retain its college graduates.

The “necessity to ease this ‘brain drain’ by attracting talent on a national scale would be inhibited by adopting an unnecessary, discriminatory amendment with fading support from younger generations,” the Indy Chamber said. “As the only potential marriage amendment up for consideration nationwide in 2014, it is important to be mindful of the conspicuous part (it) would play in portraying Indiana as a state that welcomes some, but not all, talented workers.”

Also, the chamber said that while same-sex marriage “continues to be a divisive issue in Indiana, there is sustained, growing evidence of discomfort among citizens with adding a broad, discriminatory amendment to our state’s constitution.”

The proposed marriage amendment reads:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Polls have shown that Hoosiers are changing their views on the amendment and same-sex marriage. A poll released by Freedom Indiana found that about two-thirds of Hoosiers are uncomfortable with the constitutional amendment but many fewer say they would actually vote against it.

A poll released by the Indiana Family Institute, which supports the amendment, found that two-thirds of Hoosier voters favor defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Officials at the Indiana Family Institute did not immediately return a message seeking comment on the Indy Chamber’s decision. But earlier this month, Curt Smith, the group’s president, said the “Hoosier electorate has a very settled opinion on the topic of marriage.”

“When given approximately a dozen arguments for and approximately a dozen arguments against the marriage amendment, the results were strikingly similar,” he said. “This is a remarkably stable, well-informed electorate that will be voting on this issue in 2014.”

Lesley Weidenbener is managing editor of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.

By Lesley Weidenbener
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana’s Democratic schools chief and its Republican education board are now in an all-out brawl.

State Superintendent Glenda Ritz filed a lawsuit Tuesday against 10 members of the Board of Education that she chairs. She accused the members of violating the state’s Open Door Law. Photo by Megan Banta, TheStatehouseFile.com

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Glenda Ritz swung the latest punch on Tuesday, filing a lawsuit that accuses 10 members of the State Board of Education – all of whom were appointed by Republican governors – of violating state law in a secret effort to undermine her.

The reason she’s mad: Board members, who favor the education reform policies that Ritz opposes, drafted a letter last week and sent it to GOP legislative leaders seeking to take the A-F school grading process out of the hands of Ritz’s Department of Education.

That violated the state’s Open Door Law, Ritz said, and forced her to file suit.

“I do not take this action lightly,” Ritz said in a statement about the lawsuit, which was filed in Marion Circuit Court. “But my obligations as elected state superintendent require it.”

It’s the latest in a political and public policy skirmish between Ritz, the board and other GOP officials that began when she won the office in November, ousting Republican Tony Bennett, who had been expected to win easily.

Since then, Republicans and the GOP-appointed education board have taken steps to weaken Ritz’s authority and work around the Department of Education.

Last week, the board sent a letter to Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, and House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, and asked them to assign the Legislative Services Agency the task of determining A-F grades for schools, even though state law gives the job to the Department of Education.

Ritz said no public notice was issued for a meeting that would have allowed for the action and that she was not made aware it until later, despite her role as the board’s chair.  The lawsuit accuses the board of using staff at the new Center for Education and Career Innovation – which Republican Gov. Mike Pence created in part to staff the education board – of helping carry out what she deems illegal actions.

The agency’s staff did not return a request for comment. But Pence’s spokeswoman, Christy Denault, said the governor “strongly supports the actions taken by the bipartisan membership of the State Board of Education to ensure the timely completion of last year’s A-F school accountability grades.”

“The governor is confident that all relevant Indiana laws were followed,” she said.

But Ritz disagrees.

“When I was sworn in to office, I took an oath to uphold the laws of the state of Indiana,” Ritz said in a statement. “I take this oath very seriously and I was dismayed to learn that other members of the state board have not complied with the requirements of the law. While I respect the commitment and expertise of members of the board individually, I feel they have over-stepped their bounds.”

The suit asks the court to prevent board members from meeting secretly and to prevent the Legislative Services Agency from working on the A-F grades.

The letter to legislative leader was dated Oct. 16 and was signed by the 10 board members. The members said they were concerned that the Department of Education was taking too long to develop the grades as well as teacher effectiveness ratings as required under state law.

Two days later, Long and Bosma sent a letter to the director of the Legislative Services Agency telling him to start working on the grading system. A spokeswoman for Bosma said Tuesday that he would not have a comment on the lawsuit.

The state’s Open Door Law is meant to ensure that government boards and commissions do their work in public. It says that a public meeting is any gathering of the majority of the members of a board if official action is taken.

It defines official action as receiving information, deliberating, making recommendations, establishing policy, making decisions or taking final actions. In those cases, the board must post notice and an agenda and allow the public to attend.

Ritz said in the lawsuit that the action taken by the education board members would not have fit under any of the exemptions outlined by the Open Door Law.

“Since my inauguration, I have worked tirelessly to communicate openly with the board and the public,” Ritz said. “I look forward to continuing to work to improve education for all Indiana students in a fair, transparent and collaborative manner.”

The Department of Education is using in-house attorneys for the lawsuit.

Bryan Corbin, a spokesman for Attorney General Greg Zoeller, who represents various state agencies, boards and the legislature in lawsuits, said he is  reserving comment until he has an opportunity to speak with all of the clients regarding this matter.”

“He hopes his office can serve some useful role in resolving this conflict outside of court,” Corbin said.

Lesley Weidenbener is editor of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.