Recent editorials published in Indiana newspapers
The Indianapolis Star. Jan. 15, 2016
Indiana's shameful neglect of elderly citizens
It's shameful and dangerous. But Indiana's tragic neglect of vulnerable elderly citizens, those most at risk of abuse and exploitation, also is a very solvable problem.
As The IndyStar's Marisa Kwiatowski documented in a recent investigation, the state has woefully underfunded its Adult Protective Services program, investing far less than comparable states such as Tennessee and Arizona. Thousands of older Hoosiers are left to suffer from abuse and neglect, sometimes to the point of death, as a result.
Kwiatowski found that state investigators, overwhelmed with caseloads that far exceed national standards, are slow to respond to reports of suspected abuse and are dangerously inconsistent in following up once an investigation is launched.
How bad is it? APS receives about 40,000 calls each year in which suspected abuse, neglect or exploitation of the elderly is reported. Yet, the state employs only the equivalent of 30 full-time caseworkers to investigate all of those potentially tragic situations. Arizona, in contrast, fields more than 120 investigators. Other states with similar populations to Indiana also deploy more case workers.
Advocates for the elderly have long pressed state leaders to provide for better protections for vulnerable citizens. But such requests have gained little ground in the Statehouse.
In 2014, Suzanne O'Malley, deputy director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, proposed an $11.6 million budget for APS - enough money to hire 92 investigators and to bring caseloads in line with standards. Gov. Mike Pence and the General Assembly instead budgeted only $3.2 million, less than half of what Tennessee devotes to protecting the elderly.
And so horrible, unnecessary suffering continues.
Not every problem can be solved simply by spending more money. But this is one situation where additional funding truly could make a tremendous difference for at-risk people who deserve better efforts to protect them from harm.
For another $8 million a year, lives could be saved, abuse and neglect reduced, and the quality of life for thousands of elderly Hoosiers improved. That's a relatively small amount given Indiana's $2 billion surplus and its more than $15 billion a year budget.
So, we have the means to fix this problem, even in the current, nonbudget-writing legislative session. We can afford to provide our oldest and most vulnerable neighbors with the safeguards they deserve.
___
The Evansville Courier & Press. Jan. 12, 2016
The transient nature of minor league sports.
Ever heard of the Arkansas RiverBlades? The Bakersfield Condors? The Louisville RiverFrogs?
They're all among the dozens of former ECHL hockey franchises that, for one reason or another, closed shop or left the towns where they played. Often, teams fled for what they thought would be greener pastures.
We bring this up because, for the past several weeks, negotiations between the city of Evansville and the local ECHL franchise, the IceMen, over leasing space at the Ford Center, have been a muddled mess.
News about the negotiations came out in November, with word that Dec. 1 was the deadline to secure a deal on which both parties could agree. That date came and went. The "deadline" - and we use that term loosely for a reason - was moved by the league to Dec. 15. And then to Jan. 6. And then again, as talks on leading up to late Wednesday night failed to hash out a deal, to a date that hasn't been announced.
The city in November offered IceMen owner Ron Geary a five-year proposal that drastically lowered rent costs from about $11,000 per game to, at most, $1,000 per game. Rent costs were Geary's complaint when he first talked to the media about the negotiations that month.
But the offer had a catch: It gave the city a full share of revenue from food and alcohol sales at games. City officials pitched the proposal as a way to keep their financial involvement with the IceMen at a "break even" level.
In a counterproposal sent this week, the IceMen requested reduced rent, 1,000 comp tickets to encourage food and beverage sales, along with the right to sell naming rights for the rink. Mayor Lloyd Winnecke's Chief of Staff Steve Schaefer said the IceMen's latest proposal would cost the city about $125,000 more than the current agreement. The city responded, but details remain a mystery - Winnecke's office declined to provide specifics to the Courier & Press.
Then came Wednesday night, when Geary went on local television and told Eyewitness News' Brad Byrd that unless the city is willing to subsidize the IceMen, the hockey team will leave town. He reiterated his feelings in a statement Thursday, saying that if the city's most recent offer is the best it can do, "there is simply no way we can accept it."
And that brings the city of Evansville to where it is now: Unsure whether the IceMen will return to the Ford Center next season, and wrestling with the question of whether it's a good idea to give public funds to a minor league hockey team to keep it afloat.
On the other end of that question is Geary, a known, tough negotiator. A man who twice threatened to close Ellis Park amid disputes there. (He never did.)
Both sides have tough decisions to make. Who will blink first is yet to be seen.
In the meantime, keep this in mind: Minor league sports franchises are a transient bunch by nature. Fan interest comes and goes. Advertisers and sponsors sink money in, then back off as the "new kid in the neighborhood" appeal recedes.
Evansville has a history of both short- and long-term minor league tenants.
The Triplets baseball team played here from 1970 to 1984. The Evansville Otters have been Bosse Field's home team since 1995.
Remember the Evansville BlueCats? They played five seasons of indoor football at Roberts Stadium before shutting down in 2007 because of finances. The Evansville Thunder played minor league basketball at Roberts from 1984-86.
Whatever city officials and Ron Geary choose to do, keep the Greenville Grrrowl and the Pensacola Ice Pilots and the ghosts of other old ECHL franchises in mind.
Sometimes, hockey teams just come and go.
___
The South Bend Tribune. Jan. 15, 2016
College police records bill falls short of the mark.
A bill that would change state law to make certain police records at private universities public falls well short of the mark.
The Tribune has long advocated that private universities, such as the University of Notre Dame, that employ police officers who operate with powers granted under state law should not be treated differently when it comes to information being made public.
The right to inspect reports of a private university's police department - reports that otherwise would be released by police at public universities and at municipal police agencies - has been an issue on several occasions when Notre Dame declined to release certain information on police reports requested by The Tribune.
ESPN took it a step further last year when the worldwide sports organization filed a lawsuit after Notre Dame declined to provide campus police records related to student athletes. The Tribune has filed a brief in support of ESPN, as has Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller.
St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Steven Hostetler ruled in April in favor of Notre Dame, and ESPN is appealing the ruling to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
House Bill 1022, co-authored by state Rep. B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, would require private university police department records relating to arrests or incarcerations for criminal offenses be considered public records. The bill was heard before the House Government and Regulatory Reform Committee Tuesday, where it passed unanimously.
As it is written, the bill is too narrow in scope. It applies only to specific incidents of criminal arrest, which rarely happen on college campuses. The bill should be broader and require a private university's police blotter have the same information as other police departments at public universities. That includes the specific location of any crime, names and the general description of the alleged crime.
There are other concerns. HB 1022 was drafted with input by Notre Dame and other representatives of the Independent Colleges of Indiana. It is inappropriate that a university involved in a lawsuit over access to public records should help write the law intended to enhance access to those records.
Bauer also is a member of the Independent Colleges of Indiana's board of directors, and has been for several years. That raises the question as to whether Bauer can remain objective in helping to write this bill.
Bauer has made statements in the past strongly supporting changes in the law, but those statements aren't reflected in this bill. In an April 26 story by Tribune staff writer Jeff Parrott, Bauer vowed to author legislation or work with others on a bill that would change Indiana's public records law to specify that records by campus police departments at private colleges and universities must be subject to public disclosure.
"We need to either abolish these private police forces or do what's right," Bauer said then. "I think Notre Dame shouldn't be hiding behind this. It's worse than silly ... it's just wrong."
Bauer was right then, but the bill doesn't go far enough. Now is the time for the General Assembly to clarify this issue once and for all in a manner that best serves the public, not the universities. There should be no confusion when it comes to the public's right to know.
___
The Bloomington Herald-Times. Jan. 13, 2016
Body-worn cameras beneficial if laws on disclosure are thoughtful.
Addition of body-worn cameras for Monroe County Sheriff's officers the week before Christmas will help ensure transparency and justice in interactions involving the public and county police. The Sheriff's Merit Board put in place some policies to help make sure the new technology is used to its fullest benefit.
For instance, the cameras won't be on at all times, only when officers are interacting with members of the public. The whole point of the cameras is to capture what could be testy and potentially volatile interactions, for the protection of both members of the public and the officers themselves. Storage of basic video from an officer's day would be costly and unnecessary.
The General Assembly will tackle a touchy decision involving the law enforcement body cameras this year. The question is: Who gets to view what the cameras capture?
An idea likely to get the support of the law enforcement community would be to treat the video footage as discretionary public records, which could be made available to the public at the discretion of the agency that gathered the information. Reasons for this would be to maintain the integrity of an investigation and to protect the privacy of those who might be visible in the video.
However, such a policy could be abused, with video released only when it shows police acting properly. At times, like when force is used, there must be a different level of scrutiny.
The Legislature must require that in certain cases, a third party, such as the public access counselor or a panel of retired judges, determines if there's public interest in releasing video footage law enforcement would rather keep private. Hopefully, the need for such reviews would be rare in that police would have nothing to hide and everything to gain by releasing videos. But a mechanism for an independent review is essential - for the good of the public and to maintain and build confidence in police.
The rules governing body-worn cameras should be carefully considered and of value to the broadest group of Hoosiers.
___